Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText, Topic, or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Closing instructions

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

Shortcut:
  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template[edit]

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

I Tag the template.
Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the Tfd, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

II List the template at Tfd.
Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

  • For deletion:
    {{subst:tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging:
    {{subst:tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous Tfd without brackets|result of previous Tfd}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.

Use an edit summary such as
Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:catfd2|category name}}
III Notify users.
Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects (look on the top of the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion.

Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.

Twinkle[edit]

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. However, at present, it does not notify the creator of the other template in the case of a merger, so this step has to be performed manually. Twinkle also does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion[edit]

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it before the template page is deleted.

Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed.

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

May 29[edit]

Template:Rob Pike navbox[edit]

Template:Rob Pike navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Template creep: navbox that summarizes the CV of an (admittedly high-profile) computer programmer. All articles linked from this template already link to Pike and many of them have several other navboxes. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't understand where Template Creep applies—there's but a single template on the page, and the "Avoid template creep" essay is about "the tendency for some Wikipedia articles ... to become gradually cluttered with templates". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - There appear to be enough articles with strong enough ties to support a navbox. Sometimes people will want to go from one subject to another without going through Pike's article; the navbox allows this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infestation navs[edit]

Template:Infestation navs (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

A subnavbox used in mainspace which links predominantly or entirely to items outside of mainspace, failing WP:SELFREFERENCE. This is a test case for Category:Medicine navigational box footer templates. Izno (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Category interwiki[edit]

Template:Category interwiki (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Documentation}}, which it duplicates on all of the pages it's currently used. Alakzi (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Rabbi/doc[edit]

Template:Infobox Rabbi/doc (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Template:Infobox Rabbi is a redirect to Template:Infobox Jewish leader (it was changed to a redirect with this edit of 16 November 2009), and this is left as an orphan. Si Trew (talk). The redirect itself is only used on three pages, but that's a case for WP:RFD. 07:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

May 28[edit]

Template:SNP MPs[edit]

Template:SNP MPs (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to Template:SNP, which also includes a full list of MPs.
I am not a fan of any of this type of large-set navbox, but whatever the case for such templates in general, it's daft for the 56 articles on SNP MPs to have 2 such navboxes, each containing the full list of the 56. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Merge. No objection to a list article of all (not merely sitting SNP Westminster MPs). All the best: Rich Farmbrough18:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC).
  • Query - @BrownHairedGirl: Is this typical to combine all members of the Westminster and devolved national parliaments in a single navbox by political party? To my way of thinking it would make more sense to have two separate navboxes, one for the Westminster MPs and a second one for the Holyrood MSPs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ref name added[edit]

Template:Ref name added (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. NSH002 (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep used 592 times. All the best: Rich Farmbrough18:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC).
    • What is its purpose? Alakzi (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
      • It makes it simple to display the details of an edit that added a reference name. For example {{Ref name added|BSFT|Stephen_Formation|18:37, 6 May 2009|Smith609|Quarries:| Locations}} displays as

# Article: Stephen_Formation Reference name BSFT

In particular the purpose is to allow the documentation of problems and solutions arising when a named ref is used in an article without a definition. All the best: Rich Farmbrough13:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC).
    • "used 592 times"? Not that I can see. Is it intended to be subst'd? If so, why isn't it documented? In any case, as Alakzi mentions, I can't see the purpose or value of this template. NSH002 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Use the "what links here" function. No, subt'ing it would defeat the point. All the best: Rich Farmbrough13:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC).
  • @Rich: Maybe userfy? It seems somewhat unlikely that anybody else will have a use for this. Alakzi (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-dls[edit]

Template:Uw-dls (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This seems like an awfully specific situation to create a templated message for, and this situation is well covered by the Template:Uw-spam1 series. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 22:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - There is a reason why WP:DEADLINKSPAM was created. People started replacing dead links with spam links for WP:SEO purposes (i.e. to gain search engine traffic), meaning lots of spam links in the dead links' places. This link may also be of interest. --TL22 (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand the intent, but the nomination is proposing that Template:Uw-spam1 is sufficient. What is gained by a specific case spam warning, when any spam is bad?—Bagumba (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Uw-spam1 covers normal inappropiate links that may often be put in good faith, while uw-dls covers clear spam links used in place of a dead link to gain page traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToonLucas22 (talkcontribs) 00:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
TL22, I'm not sure I see a distinction. If you feel Uw-spam1 is too "gentle", you can always start with Uw-spam2 which doesn't assume good faith. WP:UWUL allows starting with level-two templates (which make no faith judgement) or even level 3 templates (which assume bad faith) where appropriate in obvious cases. I've done my fair share of RC patrol, and I haven't seen any evidence that this specific behavior is widespread enough that it requires adding more bloat to our UW templates, and I don't see any reason to specifically mention dead links in the template itself, as the problem is with the spam link, not the dead link (if you feel you must you can use Uw-spam2's "additional text" field or leave a non-template message, which is actually preferred and will generally have better results). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 14:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If people seem to be following the advice of the Matt Woodward tutorial, use Uw-spam2, which specifically mentions how links from Wikipedia are marked so they don't improve search engine ranking. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 15:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Appreciate the bold attempt to address the dead link spam issue, but I'm still not convinced that the existing generic spam warnings are not sufficient for this case.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Melbourne Renegades Inaugural Team[edit]

Template:Melbourne Renegades Inaugural Team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Overkill, I don't think that the "inaugural" team of a cricket club is notable enough to warrant a template, it just creates clutter. Harrias talk 12:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Over, as Harrias says, kill. All the best: Rich Farmbrough18:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC).

Template:Pronoun[edit]

Template:Pronoun (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Previous TfDs for this template:

Unintuitive to use, only 5 transclusions on pages other than itself and its subpages. Replace with {{they}}, {{them}}, {{their}} or {{theirs}}. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • That's funny - a few weeks ago, when I was looking into the other TfD, this template had lots of transclusions. I find it rather convenient that now it doesn't. Has someone intentionally orphaned it? Was there consensus for such an action? --NYKevin 14:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@NYKevin: Someone apparently has, otherwise if it had this many transclusions last week I wouldn't have nominated it for merging. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It should not be have been orphaned: If someone changes their (declared) gender this will keep up with their self-identification, a substed version may not. All the best: Rich Farmbrough16:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: A substituted version will still reflect what the user has specified as their gender in their preferences, since {{pronoun}} is just the {{gender:username|m_out|f_out|u_out}} parser function with pre-filled values. Also, some of its transclusions may have been replaced with {{They}}, {{His or her}}, or other similar templates. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The former is the reason I stated "may". Deep subst would be {{subst:gender:username|m_out|f_out|u_out}} which would resolve to a value. All the best: Rich Farmbrough13:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

Template:TVN Chile 2014 telenovelas[edit]

Template:TVN Chile 2014 telenovelas (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

I think that this kind of templates should not exist, since wikipedia is not a programming guide. For that there are already articles such as: List of programs broadcast by Telemundo, or you could also create templates as you are: Template:TV Azteca telenovelas. But this kind of templates seem to be unnecessary.--Philip J Fry (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also ask that they erased are others

Template:TVN Chile 2010 telenovelas (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:TVN Chile 2011 telenovelas (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:TVN Chile 2012 telenovelas (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:TVN Chile 2013 telenovelas (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:TVN Chile 2015 telenovelas (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I would be more supportive of these if there was a clear relation between calender years and television programmes. But you could arguably end up with dozens of these types of navbox on, say, The Archers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough18:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC).

May 27[edit]

Chongqing Rail Transit templates[edit]

Template:CRT line links (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:CRT icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Category in decade[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 21:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Category in decade (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused NSH002 (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, delete, I made a better version. Abyssal (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:G7: Abyssal is the template creator, who request deletion above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

May 26[edit]

Template:Deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter[edit]

Template:Deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

There is no article on this subject and the navbox links overlap with those in Template:Deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter. This navbox gives undue prominence to the organization, thus violating WP:NPOV. There are also related WP:OR concerns that I have raised at talk:Black Lives Matter#Deaths inspiring the movement. - MrX 20:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Padenton: WP:T3 does not apply because the template has been renamed. It is a totally new way of categorizing. The new template doesn't even have all the entries of the old template because of the new way of categorizing (Kendrick Johnson). Also, WP:OR does not apply because in Black Lives Matter#Deaths inspiring the movement there is both a primary source from the official Black Lives Matter team and a secondary source citing each case's link to BLM. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It is not a totally new way of categorizing, it is not completely different. You renamed the template and it still has pretty much all of the same content. Do I really need to post a diff of the two? You have not addressed any of the stated problems in the other TfD and you also attempted to recreate the list that was already deleted under a new article name. ― Padenton|   17:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (or at least heavily reformat). I supported keeping {{2010s controversial killings of African Americans}}, and still do, but this one is redundant to that one at best, and more blatantly POV. ('Controversial killings in the 2010s' is fairly neutral, and in theory sourcable and discriminate; 'deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter' is much more of a campaigning phrase, and harder to source reliably.) The only way I think this could be kept is if it was very tightly limited to articles strongly and directly related to Black Lives Matter, and I don't think we have enough of them to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't. Each and every one of these deaths have been sourced to be linked with the Black Lives Matter movement. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - this template is totally different from {{2010s controversial killings of African Americans}}. The 2010s template did not source any connections to Black Lives Matter, they were just "controversial" deaths. In the parent article of this template, however, there are two sources, one primary from the official Black Lives Matter team, and one secondary soure, connecting each death to furthering the Black Lives Matter movement. New definition, different story here. Disclaimer: I created this template. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Essentially for the same reasons we couldn't keep {{2010s controversial killings of African Americans}}. I again counsel to attempt to include this material in the Black Lives Matter article in a way other than just sticking a list on the page. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No clear inclusion criteria. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Princeton Tigers men's soccer coach navbox[edit]

Template:Princeton Tigers men's soccer coach navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only links to two managers. A holder of this position does not appear to be inherently notable per either WP:NFOOTY or WP:NCOLLATH, so not sure the extent to which this could be expanded. Either way, currently not a useful aid to navigation Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - indeed, the Princeton Tigers men's soccer team does not seem to be high on the notability rankings. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete" per applicable precedents regarding coach succession navboxes. This navbox include nine coach links, two of which are blue links to existing content. Seven of nine links, or roughly 78% are red links to non-existent articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Country World Weightlifting Championship[edit]

Template:Infobox Country World Weightlifting Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused and redundant to {{Infobox country at games}}. Alakzi (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Country European Athletics Championships[edit]

Template:Infobox Country European Athletics Championships (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox Country World Championships in Athletics (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox country at games (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Country European Athletics Championships with Template:Infobox country at games.
The first two are redundant to the generic {{Infobox country at games}}, with the exception of the IAAF code and national federation labels, for which two new parameters could be added. A side-by-side comparison of {{Infobox Country European Athletics Championships}} and {{Infobox country at games}} can be seen here. Alakzi (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as long as the IAAF code and national federation fields are successfully merged into the "Infobox country at games" template. As a result, I also think it's worth considering renaming the games template to something more generic like "Infobox country at sports competition" instead to reflect the broadening of scope. SFB 00:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Again I see we are proposing to delete a perfectly good template because a lot of the content is duplicated. I have no allegiance to this template but if it has found an appropriate home, and the merge does require a modification, why is this discussion necessary? We've got better things to do with our time than to try to figure out how to save 1K of data by removing one small template, even if it were an exact duplicate with a different name. Trackinfo (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Trackinfo: Participation is optional. This is mostly a formality, so that the merge won't be arbitrarily reverted at some point in the future with the excuse that no consensus had been previously established. The time you've wasted you have done so willingly; you're not required to partake in any part of the merge process. I hope this answers your question. Alakzi (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Trackinfo: We need to remove redundant infoboxes for the reasons explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:New Line[edit]

Template:New Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template is used solely in New Line Cinema and Time Warner, but only tells us what is already presented in the New Line article. It is a very notable subsidiary of Time Warner, but we do not have templates for every subsidiary of the company. The New Line Cinema infobox does a good enough job of presenting the information shown in this template, as is much more beneficial to the reader being at the top of the article rather than the bottom. Cloudbound (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

May 25[edit]

Template:BBC Continents Series[edit]

Template:BBC Continents Series (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{BBC Natural History Unit}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • No it's useful for navigating and it's a particular strand of programs produced by the natural history unit. I think it should stay--94.3.76.232 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As creator of the template I'm pretty neutral. Template:BBC Natural History Unit is more complete but also a tad less clear. Do what is best. - FakirNL (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Georgia State Panthers quarterback navbox[edit]

Template:Georgia State Panthers quarterback navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

WP:EXISTING -- It is unused and the links listed do not have an article. It doesn't seem like they'll be created anytime soon. Write the articles first. Corky | Chat? 16:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per nominator's rationale. We can argue about how many blue links are enough, or what percentage of the total links must be for existing stand-alone articles, but ZERO blue links and ZERO PERCENT links to existing content is a FAIL any way your slice it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". No point of navbox clutter is a topic isn't even worthy of its own standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Truth be told, I am not a fan of any of the "starting quarterback" navboxes - even for programs where all the entries are notable. It's over-templating (and Bagumba's point about stand alone articles is true). Rikster2 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rikster2: Roger that, Rik. Now go convince 6 or 7 WP:CFB editors and we can get rid of all of them -- most of the CFB starting QB navboxes are inaccurate, incomplete and confusing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Tianjin Metro templates[edit]

Template:TJM icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:TJM line links (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:TJM route/Line 1 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:TJM route/Line 2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:TJM route/Line 3 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:TJM route/Line 9 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Shenzhen Metro templates[edit]

Template:SZM icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SZM icon links (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SZM line color (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SZM line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SZM line/box (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SZM line/name (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SZM line cell (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SZM line link (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SZM line links (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Denzel Washington sidebar[edit]

Template:Denzel Washington sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Another redundant actor's sidebar. As per previous consensus on these, with only three links which are already provided in the main article, it is not needed. Cowlibob (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:SHM icon[edit]

Template:SHM icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused, redundant to {{Rail-interchange}}. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Chennai Egmore-Thanjavur Main Line[edit]

Template:Chennai Egmore-Thanjavur Main Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Possible duplication of Template:Chennai Egmore–Thanjavur line. No need of this vague template. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 10:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:SHM line links[edit]

Template:SHM line links (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Merged with Shanghai section of {{China line}} (now in holding cell) into {{Rail-interchange}} and {{Rail color box}}, now redundant to the latter two templates. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:BJS line links[edit]

Template:BJS line links (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Merged with Beijing section of {{China line}} (now in holding cell) into {{Rail-interchange}} and {{Rail color box}}, now redundant to the latter two templates. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:BJS icon[edit]

Template:BJS icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused, redundant to {{Rail-interchange}}. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:SZM icon link[edit]

Template:SZM icon link (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:SZM box[edit]

Template:SZM box (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

May 24[edit]

Template:Merge sections[edit]

Template:Merge sections (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Merge section to (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Merge section from (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Here's why Template:Merge should remain a redirect towards Template:Merge (the redirects to Template:Merge were recently reverted):

  1. Its functionality is completely built into Template:Merge with the section=yes parameter as proven in its documentation
  2. Having two separate templates (where one was created as a fork of another) that accomplish the same function is problematic since if one template gets updated and the other one does not, the two templates are then inconsistent
  3. There are no transclusions, and there haven't been since the template was redirected back in January 2015
  4. The documentation is quite clear to allow the reader to understand how to tag a section for merging. Also, if by chance a new category is created for "sections to be merged", it can be built into Template:Merge (by suppressing the current category and adding another whenever "section=yes" is activated.)

For a similar discussion in regards to a other template being redirected to another due to being an unnecessary template fork, please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 16#Template:Other uses-section. I'm also okay with deletion of this template, but since previous consensus seems to favor redirection, that's where I'm going with this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the effort in cleaning up duplicated code, but it can't be done the slash-and-burn way, it has to offer backwards compatibility. More specifically, the section=y part cannot be lost in {{Merge sections}}. Its sole purpose is to be a handy shortcut saving users from having to type that parameter (and others). Replacing all transclusions with no discussion then asking users to give up this convenience and just RTFM [1] puts undue weight on users. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but the statement above about "section=y" is not lost; it has been implemented in Template:Merge since even before I had redirected Template:Merge. That, and are editors really saving a significant amount of keystrokes for it to matter? Compare {{Merge sections|}} with {{Merge|section=y}}; the editor only saves 1–2 keystrokes. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
That, and after I implemented the change, if I had not replaced/updated all transclusions, then that would have created a bigger problem since the wording in the sections proposed to be merged would be wrong. It's essentially the same concept as fixing links towards a disambiguation page, except the template links need to be fixed before the change happens, otherwise Wikipedia breaks. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue is cognitive load. We (template folk) should support editors so that their attempts to use templates are as successful as we can reasonably make them. Not requiring them to remember whether it's a parameter or a {foo section} template is part of that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough01:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC).
  • I respectfully disagree with parts of this statement as in theory, editors should be proof reading their edits prior to submitting them. Before clicking that "save" button without a section=yes parameter, the editor would notice that the text says "article" and then go to the template's page to see why this is happening, see the documentation file, and then add the parameter to their template. In my opinion, if an editor knows how to place a template, they also know how to arrive to the template's page to read its documentation. Steel1943 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You're just pushing red-tape upon other editors. Who loves to read documentation? It ought to be intuitive in the first place! You like "Merge|section=y", I prefer "Merge section", why do we need to impose our tastes unto others? Fgnievinski (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The template fork created in the process can cause more problems than they solve. Someone who used to not be familiar with templates, such as myself when I started editing Wikipedia, may assume that similar templates will appear and function the same, especially when it comes to templates related to discussions, such as this one. But then, after noticing that every deletion/discussion venue's related templates have similar notification and discussion-creating templates that all function differently, it led to confusion in itself. In my opinion, keeping two separate templates and not adding all functionality in one template to do both templates functions leads to confusion in itself. Steel1943 (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this little-used template. If you want to "merge sections", either make your detailed suggestion on the talk page, or boldly just do it. The proliferation of merge templates, which are too often placed on articles with no corresponding talk-page discussion, is not helping towards the goal of eventually streamlining and simplifying the infrastructure supporting our merge backlog. It complicates bot and tool requirements, and adds instruction creep to project documentation. Templates are not substitutes for talk-page discussion of what to merge and where to merge it. Their purpose is simply to flag an article to indicate that it is the subject of some form of merge proposal; the talk page is where to explain the form of the proposal in detail. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That only shows the motivation/rationale has nothing to do with the template usefulness, but rather with making it intentionally harder for editors to tag sections for merger. The tag is supposed to be a discussion starter. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Note it is little used because the nominator has replaced all calls to it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough01:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC).
  • Yes, I did this 4 months ago; there were only about 50 transclusions combined of these three templates, and they can be viewed starting at my contributions here, with about 5 or so on the next page. There were only about 50 combined transclusions of the three nominated templates, whereas there are currently over 11,600 transclusions of Template:Merge, Template:Merge to, and Template:Merge from combined. It wasn't until now that another editor questioned my edits while more transclusions of Template:Merge, Template:Merge to, and Template:Merge from have been created. Since it took so long for someone to question, I think that in itself shows the immediate usefulness of these templates. Steel1943 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is 50 transclusions too few for you? That's 50 usage cases demonstrating its usefulness. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't have any opinion about what is "too few", and never stated that. I was making a comparison of how many of their transclusions there were compared to the three which they previously redirected. Steel1943 (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I have restored Template:Merge section to and Template:Merge section from from being redirects to their respective templates Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from, and added them to this discussion. My initial nomination rationale applies to these templates as well. Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This simply does not work you can make one template a wrapper for the other, if you wish. But as a redirect it fails, since the redirect does not know about parameters. Anyone writing {Merge section} will simply get the {Merge} template unless they include a parameter. All the best: Rich Farmbrough01:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC).
  • This is understood; the discussion I referenced above was closed as "redirect" with the understanding that an additional parameter would need to be activated to change the wording in the template to "section". All three of the nominated templates include a section= parameter that can be activated to change the word "article" to "section". Keeping the nominated templates in existence as fully-functional standalone templates is an unnecessary template fork. Steel1943 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Isn't it possible to just make {{Merge section}} call/invoke {{Merge}} with the necessary section=y parameter instead of a plain redirect? That would make us all happy (except Wbm1058 above). I think I've seen something like that using Lua scripts. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If this is possible, that could be an option. However, that's a call to improve the template from its current state, which is not really the purpose of why I bought this discussion to WP:TFD. As it stands, since the "section=yes" functionality is included in the other templates, this nomination can be compared to attempting to nominate them for speedy deletion criterion T3. Steel1943 (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You'll have to nominate these templates for deletion because simply redirecting them creates silent errors. Like when I transcluded {{Merge section}} earlier today and realized it was saying "this article". Most users wouldn't take the pain of investigating what was going on. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the latter part of this statement; my nomination statement about "redirecting" was based on the previous consensus formed at the other discussion, though I would prefer deletion myself. On the same token, most users who create and work articles aren't as familiar with the back workings of templates such as myself or other editors who have been editing Wikipedia for a decade or more (such as yourself). A new user even thinking about the proper use of a merge template is an occurrence that has almost no chance of happening. And if that editor knows how the wiki software that powers this site works, then, as I stated previously, they would know how to get to the template's page to locate documentation. Steel1943 (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I suppose if we delete the three templates proposed above, that implies deleting the three "section portions" templates as well. If we keep them, I wonder where this leads... will we see {{move paragraph(s)}} or {{move sentence(s)}} in the future? I hope not. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Rich Farmbrough makes a good point regarding the need for a template wrapper to maintain functionality. I support deprecating or deleting, but I prefer keeping (as a wrapper) to redirecting. Just want to point out though that Merge bot doesn't follow redirects, so all of these many aliases need to be explicitly named in User:Merge bot/proposedmergers.phpWbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Wbm1058: How would creating these "template wrappers" be accomplished? I think I understand the concept, but if it is what I think it is, I did not think it was possible to input values of another template in a template when it invokes the other template but automatically forces one of its values based on the wrapper template's name alone ... unless something is converted to Lua. (I hope that statement wasn't too confusing.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It's simply a convenient shortcut that avoids the need to specify one or more parameters in the template it calls. {{RMtalk}} was another such template. We should deprecate these, informing editors that they should change the syntax of future usage, and possibly delete them, if we choose not to support the convenience of having the shell. My main issue with these "merge sections" templates is that the concept of merging originated as the solution of WP:content forks. "Merge sections" is usually a WP:summary style issue. Priority should be given to the forks, but at this point they've been overwhelmed by the summary style debates, to the point we now have a {{Duplication}} template. Actually, it's not really clear which template is for which. We have such a forest of templates that it's difficult to organize and manage them. It doesn't help that so many of them are ignored by other editors. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Judo at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics[edit]

Template:Judo at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Un-used - nothing but redlinks. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

May 23[edit]

Template:Colombian department navigation box[edit]

Template:Colombian department navigation box (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

redundant to {{navbox}} (I replaced it in about three different templates). Frietjes (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, now unused. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cabinet Office (United Kingdom)[edit]

Template:Cabinet Office (United Kingdom) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The content of this template is currently outdated, but in my opinion it merely duplicates the information already displayed on Cabinet Office, where it currently appears. Cloudbound (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, also poorly formatted (too much whitespace). Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not useful for navigation, poorly formatted. Neutralitytalk 19:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Toei stations[edit]

Template:Toei stations (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused and redundant to {{STN}}. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Japan adjacent railway stations[edit]

Template:Japan adjacent railway stations (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Looks nice but is unused in mainspace. Should be userfied. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Israeli Election[edit]

Template:Infobox Israeli Election (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template has been forked and superseded by {{Infobox legislative election}}. I believe, the best course of action would be to replace all current uses with {{Infobox legislative election}} and histmerge the two. To avoid having their histories overlap, should a histmerge be performed, I have not placed the {{Tfd}} banner on {{Infobox Israeli Election}}. Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Replace and histmerge per nom – unnecessary now. Just a question to Northamerica1000: Why was this relisted when there was no dissenting opinion? Number 57 12:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:SingStar song list contents[edit]

Template:SingStar song list contents (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Can be replaced by usage of the more standard {{horizontal TOC}} trivially. Has 2 transclusions. Izno (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • delete and replace per nom. Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:LDS Temple geographic toc[edit]

Template:LDS Temple geographic toc (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Railway station services templates[edit]

Template:Filton railway station services (first) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Flax Bourton railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Lawrence Hill railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Nailsea and Backwell railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Redland railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Shirehampton railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

single use templates which can be merged with the transcluding articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

There are several more. I stuck them as templates because the code for several was rather large, so it seemed better to keep them off the page itself. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Substitute then delete. Single-use templates. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Science commemorative events[edit]

Template:Science commemorative events (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Incoherent topic. Fails WP:NAVBOX. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Clear Keep As creator, I don't understand how it fails WP:NAVBOX: These topics make sense together: they are events that are public-ally focused, and are meant to celebrate and commemorate scientific achievements. I don't understand how the topic is incoherent.Sadads (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't meet any of points 1-5. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thats the thing: it meets all but #4 in my mind; you provide no explanation of how it doesn't meet 1-3. When I first created the navbox, most of them were linking to eachother in see also sections, so minimally the navbox meets 5. Cheers, Sadads (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename. Should be "Commemorative science events" or "Commemorative events for science" to be more coherent. — Wyliepedia 09:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. These topics are not really linked together. It's rather a grab bag. "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." - This isn't the case. Neutralitytalk 19:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:OP[edit]

Template:OP (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:OotP (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:OP with Template:OotP.
The template {{OP}} is a template for citing material from Harry Potter Order of the Phoenix and appears to be redundant to {{OotP}}. Pursuant to a discussion at WP:OTRSN, we are going to be moving to dated {{OTRS pending}} templates and so I was hoping to repurpose the name {{OP}} to be used the same way Commons:template:OP is used - it generates a {{OTRS pending}} tag with today's date. B (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. "OP" is cryptic and should only be used as a redirect. Alakzi (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete OP is clearly unclear per OP and not even a likely usage -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment this should not be reused for OTRS pending. It's clearly an opaque name, and there are other uses out there per OP. Instead {{subst OTRS pending}} would be the way to go, to explicitly define what that is about; unlike Commons, Wikipedia contains articles, so not everything revolves around files. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • While yes, there are other possibilities, using {{subst:OP}} for this makes us consistent with Commons, so there is some utility in that. And if we make it a more complicated template name, nobody is ever going to use it. --B (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Being consistent with Commons under this situation is undesirable, since we are not a file-centric website, and we have OP in article-space, while "OP" is highly opaque. OTRS is not so common on EN.Wiki that it should have such an opaque template-name. Indeed, it should be clearly named because it isn't common. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:J-routem[edit]

Template:J-routem (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only one transclusion (at Itō Station), redundant to {{J-route}}. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant to simply transcluding {{J-route}} twice. Alakzi (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Kedarnath Wild Life Sanctuary[edit]

Template:Kedarnath Wild Life Sanctuary (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

single use template which I merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notice - @Frietjes: Please do not forget to notify the template creator of this pending TfD. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Popstar: A Dream Come True tracks[edit]

Template:Popstar: A Dream Come True tracks (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused template. Little chance for it to become useful. Many of the links for individual tracks are simply redirects and for others it is unnecessary, unless one thinks there should be templates like this should in song articles for every compilation on which the song has appeared. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Spinnin' Records[edit]

Template:Spinnin' Records (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Record label rosters are not suitable for navboxes. Imagine if this was Atalantic or Geffen. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, better covered by a category. Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Beyond the label, just not enough of a connection between acts to warrant such a navbox on each of those pages. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Primetime Emmy Award Narrator[edit]

Template:Primetime Emmy Award Narrator (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only one entry. Does not provide useful navigation. WP:TOOSOON. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - no point with just 1. Neutralitytalk 19:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Television Academy introduced the category in 2014. It's a new award. Why delete and wait until there's more winners? --charge2charge (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Can be recreated when it becomes navigationally functional. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Primetime Emmy Award Character Voice-Over[edit]

Template:Primetime Emmy Award Character Voice-Over (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only one entry. Does not provide useful navigation. WP:TOOSOON. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - as above. Neutralitytalk 19:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Television Academy introduced the category in 2014. It's a new award. Why delete and wait until there's more winners? --charge2charge (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Serves no navigational purpose at this time, plus award templates such as these are better served as lists or else can fill up articles with too many of these types of navboxes. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Legend3[edit]

Template:Legend3 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Colorbox}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for fictional regions[edit]

Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for fictional regions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only used in one article. No need for a template as the content can be transcluded there. The Banner talk 11:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, only used in one article. Neutralitytalk 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Color box[edit]

Template:Color box (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Colorbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:RouteBox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
{{Color box}} {{Colorbox}} {{RouteBox}} {{Rail color box}}1
Border  black   darkgrey  No  black 
Colored text Yes (but not links) No Yes (links too) No2
  1. Requires sub-template for proper functionality.
  2. Text is beside box.

Propose merging Template:Color box with Template:Colorbox and Template:RouteBox.
Minor stylistic variations; two with confusingly similar names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect {{Colorbox}} to {{Color box}} and replace {{RouteBox}} with {{Rail color box}}, which places the text outside of the box per WP:ACCESS - avoid colouring text, especially links, at all times. Alakzi (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment To anyone here with the relevant permissions (template or admin), the line break after the TfM notice in both {{Color box}} and {{Colorbox}} is causing additional newlines to appear. (I fixed the one in {{RouteBox}} since the template isn't protected.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Fixed by Redrose64. Thanks! Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge {{Color box}} and {{Colorbox}} (along with {{Legend3}}) and keep {{RouteBox}} but rewrite based on {{Rail color box}}, since {{Rail color box}} uses the {{<system> line}} and {{<system> color}} templates and {{RouteBox}} doesn't; and {{RouteBox}} can be used for bus routes as well. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Why keep {{RouteBox}} if it offers no functionality specific to routes? Alakzi (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep all: {{Color box}} has text colour but no links, while {{Colorbox}} has links but no text colour. Merging them both would require keeping both the links and the text colour; since links shouldn't be coloured per WP:COLOUR, it would be pointless to perform this merge. (The border colour should, however, be standardized to either black or grey to prevent editors choosing a different one based on the colour be changed to black to provide additional contrast.) {{RouteBox}} (which currently colours all links) should be kept but rewritten based on {{Rail color box}}, since while it's used for the same purpose, it doesn't use the sucession template system and it can be used for different transportation modes. Merging it with {{Colorbox}} would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, because some background colours might make it difficult to see links. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Your !vote is inconsistent with your reasoning. If we're colouring links, we should stop doing it; thereby, {{Colorbox}} would become redundant and replaceable by {{Colour box}}. The same goes for {{RouteBox}}. Alakzi (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @Alakzi: I was assuming that links on a coloured background where they are distinguishable from the background would be allowed (the MOS does not say anything about this). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 03:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Merge all (changing border colour to the text colour #252525 or black #000; removing the bold of {{RouteBox}}; and adding tracking categories for text colour which isn't black or white and for combinations of text colour and links (and adding a parameter specially for uses in {{rint}} not to show in the tracking categories)), unless {{RouteBox}} has to be modified for violating WP:CONTRAST, in which case {{RouteBox}} and {{Color box}} stay separate and {{Colorbox}} is replaced with either of them on a case-by-case basis. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep {{Color box}} and {{RouteBox}}, replace {{Colorbox}} with {{Color box}} or {{RouteBox}} on a case-by-case basis: Even though {{RouteBox}} does use both text and background colour, in practice, the colour used for the text is virtually always either black or white, and the content of the text itself virtually always makes it completely obvious what the background colour is (see for example its multiple usages on {{MBTA Silver Line}}); as the purpose of WP:COLOUR is to make sure that colour-blind users and/or users without a colour printer or colour display screen can still make out the text from the background, the text being virtually always either white or black should eliminate any problems with WP:COLOUR. However, {{Colorbox}} has both grey borders and blue wikilinks, which, when combined with the coloured background, makes it totally incompatible with WP:COLOUR except when the background colour is either very light or very dark; thus, it should be replaced on a case-by-case basis with either {{Color box}} or {{RouteBox}}, which have black borders and no borders, respectively, instead of grey borders, and, in practice, usually either black or white instead of blue text, and are therefore far friendlier to colour-blind users than {{Colorbox}} due to their much greater text-against-background contrast. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 22:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • WP:COLOR says, "links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers". Coloured links are no longer identifiable as links; the only cue that remains is the underline on hover. Alakzi (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:COLOUR also says, "Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind. Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". Given that, for colour-blind users, even a default-coloured bluelink may well be identifiable as a link only by the underline on hover, and that the default blue link colour is much harder for colour-blind users to distinguish from the background colour than a white- or black-coloured link is, I'd say that a) WP:COLOUR is internally inconsistent, and b), given that WP:COLOR is internally inconsistent, the great improvement in contrast and thus visibility to colour-blind users gained by having the links in the same white or black colour as the rest of the text far outweighs any decrease in distinguishability versus the rest of the text (and given that we're talking about colour-blind users here, making the links contrast with the rest of the text via blue colour will do little if any good compared to the harm it will do by making the linktext far harder to distinguish from the background). Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 22:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Compare MtlMetro1.svg ({{rint|montreal|metro|1}}—image) &  1  ({{RouteBox|1|Green Line (Montreal Metro)|#{{Montreal Metro color|Green}}}}—text): I don't see any “clearly … identifiable … link” for either example, but you're not proposing the deletion of {{rail-interchange}} (yet). Useddenim (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
No, links are also distinguishable by their contrast; they're lighter than regular text. You propose a false dichotomy; I never did suggest to use links against a coloured background. This isn't the place to challenge our accessibility guidelines. (It is the place to explain how they might be inapplicable, but that's not what you've done.) Beyond accessibility, it is also good practice to visually distinguish links for readers without a vision impairment. As for {{Rint}}: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Alakzi (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: {{Rint}} is somewhat relevant to this, since it uses {{Color box}} and {{RouteBox}}, and will be affected if either of them are modified. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 03:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all, per Jc86035. {{RouteBox}} is completely different from {{Rail color box}} (and doesn't depend on external system definitions, which is why I wrote it — P.S. thanks for notifying the author of the proposed merge) in both form and function.
    For example,
{{RouteBox}} {{Rail color box}}
 1       Line 1
are hardly the same (the former being close to what appears on sytem signage in Shanghai). Furthermore, {{RouteBox}} is used frequently in WP:Route diagram templates. The proposed replacement with {{Rail color box}} would consume an inordinate amount of space. (In the illustration above, it’s a 7× increase.)
And as AlgaeGraphix noted in October 2010 at Template talk:Colorbox, “it's a little confusing that the 4th parameter has a different meaning in two very similar templates.” {{Color box}} and {{Colorbox}} have coexisted just fine for the last eight years (and had no significant changes for nearly as long), so I'm really not convinced of any need to merge them. Useddenim (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment whatever happens RouteBox should not exist as a template (can work as a redirect), since this is template can be generally usable, there is nothing inherent in it that is restricted to routes. A new template that chooses color background or text or outline box, linked or unliked, can be created to unify all functionality. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all {{color box}} and {{colorbox}} are used in thousands of pages and redirecting/merging either would result in breaking historical page versions. By all means, mark one or both as depreciated. {{RouteBox}} could be renamed to a more suitable name. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 12:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Nether being "used in thousands of pages" nor "breaking historical page versions" has ever been considered a reason not to merge templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you guys sort this out your making some Australian Football pages look ugly with the see tfm stuff     Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As usual, I got here from an article that said "see tfm" on it, and I have zero opinion on or interest in the issue at hand. Couldn't we at least not show that for people who aren't logged in? I hate to discriminate against IP editors, but the vast majority of people (especially readers, who mostly don't have accounts) who stumble on an article and see the tfm notice aren't going to care about the discussion and don't even know what a "tfm" is. I'm sure there's a better place to raise this issue, but blah. ekips39 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I support User:Thejoebloggsblog, this needs to be sorted out quickly, and we need to get rid of this tfm ugliness. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocterYas (talkcontribs) 17:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep All Paraphrasing what someone stated above, any change would probably cause more trouble and confusion than whoever proposed the change thought there was to begin with... And, as someone else said, let's get it done quickly... GWFrog (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • An unsubstantiated assertion that "any change would probably cause" unspecified problems is not a reason not to merge templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Taiwan colorbox line templates[edit]

Template:Banqiao Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Luzhou Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Nangang Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Neihu Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Songshan Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Tamsui Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Tucheng Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Wenshan Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Xiaonanmen Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Xinbeitou Branch Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Xindian Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Xinyi Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Xinzhuang Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Zhonghe Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This is kind of ridiculous, honestly. There is no need for a {{Colorbox}} plus line link template for each line. Should be substituted or replaced with a {{Rail colorbox}} that functions like {{Rail color box}} but uses {{Colorbox}} (grey border) instead of {{Color box}} (black border). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Subst or merge into {{Rail color box}} and delete - no need for a new rail colour box template just for changing the border colour. Alakzi (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst or merge per Alakzi. We should also never distinguish different templates just by the use of spaces in their names. I've accordingly nominated {{Colorbox}} and {{Color box}} for merging, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Taiwan line[edit]

Template:Taiwan line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Rail-interchange (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Rail color box (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Taiwan line with Template:Rail-interchange and Template:Rail color box.
As with {{China line}} (now in holding cell; discussion), {{Taiwan line}} can be replaced with {{Rail-interchange}} and {{Rail color box}} (using the {{Example line}} and {{Example color}} set of succession templates). There isn't a need for a separate symbol template for each city/country/system. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Guangzhou Metro nonstandard route templates[edit]

Template:Guangzhou Metro/1 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro/2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro/3 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro/3A (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro/4 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro/5 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro/6 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro/7 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro/8 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro/9 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro/Airport Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro/APM (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro/GFM (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused; redundant to the superior {{GZM RDT}} and subtemplates. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Guangzhou Metro line templates[edit]

Template:Guangzhou Zhujiang New Town APM Systems (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 1 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 3 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 4 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 5 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 6 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 8 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused templates, seemingly superseded by {{Guangzhou Metro lines}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:GZM line cell[edit]

Template:GZM line cell (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only used on one mainspace page. Substitute before deletion. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:GZM line cell has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

No objections. Kxx (talk | contribs) 16:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Oussama Belhcen[edit]

Template:Oussama Belhcen (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No navigational benefit for a navbox with a link to an article that should probably be redirected or deleted itself. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

May 22[edit]

Template:Akron-Kent State Result[edit]

Template:Akron-Kent State Result (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

we don't need it per this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support' I made it mostly for a test and never used it in an article. Right now it's just in my sandbox. The article Wagon Wheel (trophy) still uses a standard results chart for the games and I have no plans to change that. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - JonRidinger immediately above is the template creator, who consents to deletion. Speedy delete per WP:G7. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:FC Tiraspol seasons[edit]

Template:FC Tiraspol seasons (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Links to only one season. Not a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:List of New York City Subway services/future[edit]

Template:List of New York City Subway services/future (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to {{NYCS const}}; was meant for transclusion to List of New York City Subway services. Epic Genius (talk) ± 15:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:List of New York City Subway services/current[edit]

Template:List of New York City Subway services/current (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to {{NYCS const}}; was meant for transclusion to List of New York City Subway services. Epic Genius (talk) ± 15:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:List of New York City Subway lines[edit]

Template:List of New York City Subway lines (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to {{NYCS const}}; was meant for transclusion to List of New York City Subway lines. Epic Genius (talk) ± 15:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Manchester Metrolink line[edit]

Template:Infobox Manchester Metrolink line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Southern Railway (UK)[edit]

Template:Infobox Southern Railway (UK) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template only has one transclusion; should be substituted. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Ireland bus station[edit]

Template:Infobox Ireland bus station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only two transclusions; redundant to {{Infobox station}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Chinese[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator per JohnBlackburne. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Chinese (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Note: I am not proposing to delete this template's subtemplates (except possibly /Header and /Footer).

This complicated template, a wrapper of its subpages, is problematic for several reasons.

  • Many of the articles it is used on have two infoboxes, when its subtemplates (such as {{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}}), which are preconfigured to be child infoboxes, could be used as modules inside the other infobox on the page instead.
    • It is not very useful on the rest of the articles it is used on either (where it is the only infobox), as it does not contain anything other than translations and transcriptions. These could be replaced with different infoboxes (using the subtemplates as modules), or even just replaced with {{zh}} in the article text.
  • The structure of this template is very rigid, and its subtemplates have to be shown in a specific and arbitrary order, which makes the template less than ideal for countries where Chinese (which is always first in the template) is not the primary language, and the local language is displayed at the bottom. Using just the subtemplates allows the order to be customized.
  • The template is overly complicated and has to be updated whenever something is added to any of its 20 or so subtemplates; it is quite large at 19KB for a template that does almost nothing other than transclude helper templates.

If anything, this template's subpages could just be used as described in § Alternative usage of the template's documentation, similarly to {{Infobox aircraft begin}}. There is little benefit to using this template instead of directly using the subtemplates; the documentation could be greatly simplified if the subtemplates were used instead.

{{Infobox Chinese/Header}} and {{Infobox Chinese/Footer}} should also be deleted if this template's subpages are to be used only as modules in other infoboxes. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • comment You do not seem to want it deleted, and that would be a very bad idea anyway for a template so widely used, in over 6000 articles. Replacing it with a {{Chinese infobox begin}} , {{Chinese infobox end}} pair would be possible and probably straightforward but I don't think it's a good idea either. First it would be a massive amount of work to update articles, as a far from simple replacement. It might even need doing manually as a bot might have a hard time doing it. Second it would not be easier to use but harder, requiring many editors to relearn how to use it, going from one to many templates.
A better approach would be to reimplement it in Lua. This could be done to require no changes to articles or to how it works. It could eliminate the sub-templates and introduce greater flexibility. It is obviously though a lot of work. Both this and begin/end are not really TfD matters but changes that should be discussed on the template's talk page, in which case this should probably be closed and discussion continue there.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Old discussions[edit]

May 21[edit]

Template:London Tram stations[edit]

Template:London Tram stations (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Completely redundant to {{Infobox station}}. There is no need for a separate infobox template for every network.

This template could also be replaced with {{Infobox London station}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Future Rail Insert[edit]

Template:Future Rail Insert (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{S-note|text=Future services}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Filton railway station services (second)[edit]

Template:Filton railway station services (second) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only one transclusion; should be substituted. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Subst and redirect or histmerge and delete, or whatever makes sense for maintaining attribution. Alakzi (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Replace per Alakzi. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rob Pike navbox[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 29 #Template:Rob Pike navbox. Alakzi (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Eponymous medical signs for urinary system[edit]

Template:Eponymous medical signs for urinary system (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Urinary system symptoms and signs (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Eponymous medical signs for urinary system with Template:Urinary system symptoms and signs.
I propose merging to the other template. It's unnecessary to split off these four items from the larger template (signs and symptoms), it just makes it harder to readers to access relevant information. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

May 20[edit]

Template:RollbackWait[edit]

Template:RollbackWait (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template is never used, and has absolutely no reason to be used. It doesn't follow current PERM policies. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Alakzi (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:NYCS-bull-flex[edit]

Template:NYCS-bull-flex (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only used on four mainspace pages. Can be replaced with {{Rail-interchange}} or {{NYCS-bull-small}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The set of templates this is part of (Category:Station layout templates) is only used on about 10 mainspace pages. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Support merging with Template:NYCS-bull-small. Epic Genius (talk) ± 12:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:NYCS-bull-small[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:NYCS-bull-small (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Rail-interchange (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:NYCS-bull-small with Template:Rail-interchange.
{{Rail-interchange}} has nearly all of {{NYCS-bull-small}}'s features (except nolink and align, which can trivially be added). There isn't really a need to have two different templates for this. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:NYCS-bull-small is specifically for New York City Subway services, so massive numbers of articles would have to be changed if these articles were to use Template:Rail-interchange. I support this in theory, but it is very tedious. Epic Genius (talk) ± 12:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Support. Initially it can be replaced with {{rint|newyork|{{{1}}}}} until the replacement is finished. Useddenim (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Question - Can Template:Rail-interchange truly live without Template:NYCS-bull-small? I also see some templates that display some NYC Subway bullets in connections parameters of such infoboxes as Grand Central Terminal, Pennsylvania Station (New York City), Long Island City (LIRR station), Harlem–125th Street (Metro-North station), and others. How will they be affected by the change once they're implemented? Also, if a merge is suitable, has the nom considered merging Template:NYCS-bull-small into Template:NYCS time 2? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@DanTD: The bullets will be unaffected. {{NYCS time 2}} already uses {{NYCS-bull-small}} for |style=bullets. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Support as per Jc86035. Also, if there are concerns about replacing it in a large number of articles, aren't there bots that help with that sort of thing? --Natural RX 15:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2014 Commonwealth Games table tennis mixed doubles bronze[edit]

Template:2014 Commonwealth Games table tennis mixed doubles bronze (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused template, appears to have been a test by a user that was never completed or needed. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator's rationale: unused, unloved and incomplete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:TT[edit]

Template:TT (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Looks like a test template, was never used except in the other unused test template {{2014 Commonwealth Games table tennis mixed doubles bronze}}. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Convert to a wrapper for <tt> for typewriter text font -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I had considered boldly doing this, but remembered that <tt>...</tt> is obsolete in HTML, and its uses are being phased out. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It can instead redirect to {{mono}}, which does the same thing as the obsolete <tt> tag but with CSS styling. I think, though, that it is encouraged to create a completely new template with the same name only after the old page is deleted in cases like this. SiBr4 (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as test/redundant. Alakzi (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

May 19[edit]

Template:SS501 sidebar[edit]

Template:SS501 sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The band's discography is already linked in the main article, as well as Template:SS501. I think a sidebar is unnecessary. Random86 (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support: I was the one who created the sidebar coz I think it'll be useful for the new readers. I think it became unnecessary after a while, just as you said, so I think it's better to just delete it. 001Jrm (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

cities and mayors of 100,000 population templates for states with few large cities[edit]

Template:New Mexico cities and mayors of 100,000 population (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Nebraska cities and mayors of 100,000 population (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Kentucky cities and mayors of 100,000 population (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Two linked cities is insufficient for templates in Template:Cities and mayors of 100,000 population footer. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • !vote amended to include NM, Nebraska and KY. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

May 18[edit]

Template:Uw-dls[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 28#Template:Uw-dls. Alakzi (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Decades and years 22[edit]

Template:Decades and years 22 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused template. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox PL constituency[edit]

Template:Infobox PL constituency (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template should not be deleted or merged since there are unique characteristics and nomenclature not available within the generic template. It is the same reason why Template:Infobox UK constituency and Template:Infobox French constituency and Template:Infobox Grand National Assembly of Turkey electoral district exist. Plus we're in the middle of rolling it out due to the Fall 2015 General Elections in Poland. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm also assuming that Template:Infobox UK constituency and Template:Infobox French constituency and Template:Infobox Grand National Assembly of Turkey electoral district should be deleted for the same reasons? Ajh1492 (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing: I assume the generic parliamentary constituency infobox has the European options already and the one or two Poland-specific options have been added to the generic template, correct? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • There's a lot in the infobox header (foreign language name, legislative entity name/link, etc.). Continuing downward Labels 1,2,7,8,9,10 need to get modified and tailored, not to mention adding the whole overlapping constituency section in Labels 27 & 29. If ALL constituency templates got merged into the generic template it would be horribly complex and long, thus defeating the main logic for an Infoblock template in the first place. There is a reason why the UK, FR and TR (and the PL) template exist. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Greater Los Angeles Sports by year navboxes[edit]

Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1946 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1947 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1948 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1949 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1958 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1959 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1960 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1961 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1962 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1963 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1964 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1965 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1966 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1967 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1968 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1969 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1990 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1991 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1992 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1993 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1994 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1995 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1996 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1997 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1998 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1999 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2000 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2001 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2002 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2003 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2004 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2005 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2006 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2007 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2008 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2009 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2010 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2011 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2012 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2013 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2014 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 2015 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Need to avoid template creep and delete these. We don't need the clutter of listing trivially related articles to other sports teams on a per year basis, merely because they are based in same city. Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 2: "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." The sports are unrelated aside from trivial matter of being in same locale. Don't need the year-by-year ad nauseum clutter. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." There is a general sports article, Sports in Los Angeles, but it doesn't go into crufty year-by-year detail. Template:Greater Los Angeles Area Sports already links to that general article, and a single template is sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I've had my eye on these templates for a while now, and I'm glad to see someone else did the dirty work and nominated these. The nominator did an excellent job with the rationale, but I also want to add the fact that Los Angeles is the only city that got this treatment. If we allow these, we could start to see several other cities get templates like this, so we should delete this navbox creep before it gets out of hand. Tavix | Talk  20:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above reasonings. They are also incomplete, as a full listing of Los Angeles sports teams would include multiple college teams, several minor league baseball teams, a d-league basketball team, an arena football team and assundry other activities, many of which have season articles that could conceivably be included here.. Spanneraol (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ughhh, delete per above. this is way over-navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - These sports navboxes that include clusters of teams based on regional groupings within states and metro regions are usually ill-conceived and little used. Breaking them out even further by year is crufty and unnecessary, contributing very little to reader navigation among sports team articles that share very little other than geography. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete alll as navbox cruft. Unnecessary and will undoubtedly spawn more cities' navboxes like this – let's not let that happen, thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:MissGrandInternational[edit]

Template:MissGrandInternational (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

A navigation template is supposed to make the navigation between related item easier. But this template has only one item, a link to an article in the Thai lanuage, so there is nothing to navigate. The Banner talk 13:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not enough links to provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, recreate when there are more links to include. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. With only 2 article links, there's not much to navigate. Everything else has been deleted. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Tsuen Wan-Tsuen Wan West[edit]

Template:Tsuen Wan-Tsuen Wan West (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This is just a line of article text in a template; its three transclusions can be substituted. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • subst and delete article content should not be hidden away in templates making it difficult for regular editors to edit. This is an improper use of a template. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • subst and delete Article text should be editable right within the article, and the content of this template—a mere two half-sentences with two wikilinks—is hardly so unwieldy as to warrant exiling it to a template. Maralia (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:CW DC Universe[edit]

Template:CW DC Universe (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This nav box claims to be for the CW's DC Comics universe. That page does not exist, because the universe itself is not notable yet. Instead, the nav box links to List of CW's shared DC Comics TV universe actors (which honestly, probably should not exist right now either). The links within are currently either duplicating existing templates (Template:Arrow (TV series)), linking to individual sections of the same page (ala List of The Flash characters and List of Arrow characters), or simply sending them to their comic book page which does not have any direct connection to the shows. The template appears useful on the surface, but when you really look at it, it's masquerading the fact that it's just housing an indiscriminate collection of links to sections of pages, instead of actual pages themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Guangzhou Metro templates[edit]

Template:GZM line links (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:GZM box (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:GZM line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:GZM icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:GZM icon long (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Merged with Guangzhou section of {{China line}} (now in holding cell) into {{Rail-interchange}} and {{Rail color box}}, now redundant to the latter two templates. All transclusions should be substituted before deletion. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:GZM box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No objections. Kxx (talk | contribs) 16:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:China Metro line[edit]

Template:China Metro line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused, redundant to {{Infobox rail line}}. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:MissGrandWinner[edit]

Template:MissGrandWinner (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No need for a navigation template to navigate between two relevant items. This can be solved by normal wikilinking. The Banner talk 11:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, recreate when there are more links to include. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:MissGrandThailandWinner[edit]

Template:MissGrandThailandWinner (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No need for a navigation template to navigate between two (max. three) relevant items. This can be solved by normal wikilinking. The Banner talk 11:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, recreate when there are more links to include. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:MissGrandInternationalWinner[edit]

Template:MissGrandInternationalWinner (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No need for a template with just two relevant items, the navigation between them can be solved with normal wikilinking The Banner talk 11:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, recreate when there are more links to include. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 17[edit]

Template:Supermodel International[edit]

Template:Supermodel International (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

A template that navigates to one article. Other blue links have been deleted or redirected at AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Medium-size metropolitan area roads templates[edit]

Template:Highways in the Capital District, New York (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Annapolis, Maryland Roads (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Baton Rouge Highways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Metro Birmingham expressways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Peoria expressways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Providence freeways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Tulsa Area Highways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:SLC highways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

These templates should be deleted because they are not necessary in articles—Categories are sufficient for organizing these links—and because they cause problems with tracking what pages link where. Many of these templates have been deleted recently, starting with the Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here.  V 04:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. --Rschen7754 04:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all—per precedent. Imzadi 1979  05:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per precedent. Also, not that it matters, but I vehemently disagree that SLC is a "medium-sized" metro. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 06:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    If you want to get technical, according to List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, the Birmingham MSA is larger than the Salt Lake City MSA. Also, Annapolis is not even its own metro area. I will keep my metro area size judgements to myself next time.  V 13:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all per all my former votes. I agree with Molandfreak above. Salt Lake City is not a medium-sized city. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • And even if it isn't a "medium-sized city", how would that invalidate the nomination other than to potentially shift it into a different batch of nominated templates? Imzadi 1979  22:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete all per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Per precedent. Dough4872 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all, particularly Tulsa, which has a particularly large number of highways. BalooUriza (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • What does number of highways in a metropolitan area have to do with whether to keep these templates?  V 23:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

May 16[edit]

Template:The Art of Being Human[edit]

Template:The Art of Being Human (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

none of the names in this navigation box are blue linked. none are notable, and navboxes are to aid readers in navigating. if it doesnt, then its just unsourced data that doesnt belong here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Someone needs to review the conceptual purpose of a navbox. This one fails that purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Besides the reasons given in the nom and by Dirtlawyer, the article for The Art of Being Human has been deleted by AfD, giving this template no home and no purpose whatsoever. Rlendog (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rlendog: Yeah, that too. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Melbourne Renegades Inaugural Team[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 28#Template:Melbourne Renegades Inaugural Team. Alakzi (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Pronoun[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 28#Template:Pronoun. Alakzi (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox T&W Metro station[edit]

Template:Infobox T&W Metro station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox T&W Metro station with Template:Infobox station.

There is no reason to have a separate and nearly identical infobox for every country and rail system.

Since the last nomination of {{Infobox T&W Metro station}}, closed as keep due to parameter issues, most of the missing parameters have been added to {{Infobox station}}, making the T&W infobox redundant except for |metrosince= (corollary |reopened= in {{Infobox station/sandbox}}), |escalator= (little-used, will probably not be merged as irrelevant) and the multiple usage fields (rarely used and in need of updating; can be replaced by built-in {{Rail pass box}} or multiple transclusions of it in |mpassengers=). Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Why the generic, non-UK template? Why, once again, has this not been proposed to interested WikiProjects? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Redrose64: I have notified WikiProject Trains and WikiProject North East England of this discussion. Merging to {{Infobox station}} instead of {{Infobox GB station}} has several benefits. There are both years-events (date on left, which both GB station and T&W station have) and opened/closed (date on right, which GB station does not have) event fields in Infobox station, which simplifies a merger; and {{Infobox station}} can use {{Rail pass box}} (or multiple transclusions of it with |mpassengers=), whereas {{Infobox GB station}} uses the UK style of displaying traffic figures, and links to the National Rail website automatically (with no option for changing the links). {{Infobox GB station}} is also missing line and distance parameters and a subheader for the station type, which both the T&W and generic infoboxes have, as well as |escalator=. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete {{Infobox T&W Metro station}} as redundant. Escalators and the 1979 zone are not key facts and should not be kept in the infobox. |metrosince= can be listed inside |opened=. I've converted the Haymarket infobox to demonstrate: Special:Diff/662597910. Alakzi (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, infobox station is broken; it doesnt center the title text. Christian75 (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Christian75: The fact that the {{rint}} symbols make the header text very slightly off-centre does not make the whole template broken, and furthermore, is completely irrelevant to this merger discussion and should really be kept over at Template talk:Infobox station. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
      • To add, the T&W metro infobox hasn't even got a service icon. Alakzi (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
        • But its a good example why we should not merge everything to "one fits them all". I think we should not merge anything into template:infobox station until it is fixed. Christian75 (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
          • @Christian75: Would left-aligning the header text instead of nearly but not quite centring it when a symbol is shown be better? Maybe you could suggest it on the talk page of {{Infobox station}}. For now, it's fine and also doesn't affect this infobox because, as Alakzi said, it doesn't have any {{rint}} symbols to begin with. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
          • No, it's not a good example of that; this supposed issue has got nothing to do with the scope of {{Infobox station}}. Alakzi (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:TVN Chile 2014 telenovelas[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 28#Template:TVN Chile 2014 telenovelas. Alakzi (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

May 13[edit]

Template:SMS line links[edit]

Template:SMS line links (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:BSM line links (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:DMT line links (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Rail-interchange}} (which these templates are wrappers for). (Substitute before deleting) Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep they used well and are useful so I see no need as to why they should be deleted. ₪RicknAsia₪ 11:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Rickinasia: To clarify, I'm not proposing that all the links be removed (is that what you think I meant?); just that the links use the standard {{Rail-interchange}} template instead of these three templates. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry mate, I seem to have misunderstood. I got a posting on my User Talk page about this discussion but it said "Nomination for deletion of Template" so I felt it best to toss in a quick "keep it, don't delete!"  :) If they can be merged in a way that preserves the information I am all for that. I must admit I am a little uncomfortable with "discussions" as I usually find them too late and then stuff disappears. Thank you for the clarification Jc! Best~ ₪RicknAsia₪ 14:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete all: They will be substituted fully. User:Jc86035, thank you. Sawol (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant after substitution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

May 12[edit]

Template:JR West stations[edit]

Template:JR West stations (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused and redundant to {{STN}}. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:GZMTR stations[edit]

Template:GZMTR stations (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused and redundant to {{STN}}. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • What? Do you know what this is for? It is redundant to {{GZM stations}}. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why does {{Station}}, or any of its derivatives, exist? All they do is obfuscate regular wikilinks: {{Station|City Hall}} = [[City Hall station|City Hall]]. Alakzi (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Related templates suffixed with lines, stations and color are all read by succession templates. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The linking function is secondary and the person who added the standard documentation did not fully understand the function and relationship. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd have raised no objections if they were meta-templates, but these are apparently used in articles. Take a look at the lede of Ealing Broadway station, for example - absurd. Alakzi (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
        • We are talking about different fruit, and this is not the place to discuss those type of templates. As I said above, a series of templates named in a specific way like this one relate to succession templates. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
          • The nominator's rationale was "redundant to {{STN}}", which is a wrapper of {{Station}}. I was commenting on that. Alakzi (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
            • Exactly. That is not the template nominated for deletion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - unused and not needed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

May 11[edit]

Template:Masta Wu[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was deleteNorth America1000 18:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Masta Wu (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Most of the links in this navbox quickly became redirects, and there is only one link left. Random86 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed, let's wait unless/until the See Also section of the page grows enough to warrant a template. CrowCaw 22:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, not enough to navigate. Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale: we don't do one-link navboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No purpose to a template that doesn't actually navigate anyplace useful. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely pointless, doesn't go anywhere useful, and created by a sockpuppet. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American football game infoboxes[edit]

Template:Infobox World Bowl (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (15 transclusions)
Template:Infobox UFLchamp (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (3 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Super Bowl (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (59 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Pro Bowl (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (74 transclusions)
Template:Infobox NFL championship game (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (37 transclusions)
Template:Infobox NFL single game (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (53 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Belgian Bowl (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (33 transclusions)
Template:Infobox ArenaFootballSingleGameHeader (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (6 transclusions)
Template:Infobox ArenaBowl (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (28 transclusions)
Template:Infobox AFLChamp (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (10 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox AFLChamp with Template:Infobox ArenaBowl.
A swathe of largely-duplicative American football game infoboxes, which could all be handled by a single, expandable infobox, very much like I've done with {{Infobox soccer draft}}. The present situation is ummanageable. Alakzi (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Alakzi: 1. I didn't look at the others, but you broke {{Infobox college football single game mini header}} when you added the tfd template. Tables need to start on a new line, so if the first thing in the template is a table, you need a carriage return after you add the tfd template. The table was clearly broken in your revision. This broke every use of the template. Please make sure that nothing else is broken. 2. I don't hugely care as long as (a) we don't lose functionality and (b) it's not painfully difficult to use the new one. Consolidating templates for making them more maintainable is definitely a good thing in general ... the new template just needs to be able to handle the different cases. Consider, for example, that college football has very different overtime rules than NFL football. In college football, you might have seven overtime periods (that is currently the record) whereas in the NFL, unless it is the playoffs, the game ends in a tie if you reach the end of the one (and only) overtime period without a score. (In the playoffs, you will play additional periods.) I'm not sure that there is anything to !vote on since no template currently exists that can handle all of the cases handled by these individual templates. Once such a template exists, please let me know. --B (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I didn't look at the others ... This is an issue with Twinkle, and I've fixed all the other ones. I'm not sure that there is anything to !vote ... We're !voting on the intent to create such a template to accommodate all use cases. I've personally never witnessed a merge nomination where the merge was performed beforehand, and I'm definitely not going to spend the remainder of the day merging all fourteen of these, only to be told that there's no consensus. Alakzi (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, but it's not really a merge in the same sense that an article merge is a merge. In this case, you're creating a new template to duplicate the functionality of a bunch of other templates. While I agree that there's no problem with the idea, I reserve the right to disagree if the eventual new template breaks existing functionality in some way. --B (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Functionality won't be lost, but their design will be unified; I make no promise to keep the super-tiny text in {{Infobox college football single game mini header}}, for example. Alakzi (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Well, that's kinda the point of that template - it's to have a smaller infobox when you have one article about multiple games so that if it's a stub, you don't have a bunch of templates running into each other. --B (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
            • Reducing the cell spacing or line-height would be more effective and make it more readable. Alakzi (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, and for the reasons explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Maybe you could merge it in theory, but some of them have some complex or unique properties, like {{Infobox Pro Bowl}}, which has a switch statement that automatically modifies the header depending on the year. Or {{Infobox Super Bowl}} which has several specific hardcoded headers, labels and links to various articles in Category:Super Bowl. You are probably better off modifying all of these so there is one general infobox meta-template and then a bunch of wrappers. Otherwise you may have yet another template sitting in the holding cell for several months. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Please look at the source code of {{Infobox soccer draft}} and {{Infobox soccer draft/draft}} to get an idea of how the title and other league-specific labels could be handled. I've converted {{Infobox Pro Bowl}} to use {{Infobox}} to serve as a primer. Alakzi (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually that does not really address my comment about needing to have one meta-template and a bunch of auxiliary templates. Converting each one to {tl|Infobox}} is one thing. Merging all the unique properties to one single infobox template is another. As User:B alluded to above, college American football has different rules than professional American football, so, among others, the box score table in the infobox is more expanded. And because {{Infobox college football single game}} is primarily used for college football articles, it also has several unique fields and labels that are not found in the infoboxes for professional football. Likewise, {{Infobox Pro Bowl}}, {{Infobox Super Bowl}} and the other infoboxes used for professional football have labels and fields that are unique to professional football, and not applicable to college football. Unless you intend to have one single template with a bunch of switch and other parser functions, you are going to have, as I said, one meta-template and a bunch of auxiliary templates (either sub-templates like {{Infobox soccer draft/draft}} or wrappers). Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
        • You appeared to have been concerned about code complexity, which is why I gave {{Infobox soccer draft}} as an example. We've not got to merge every single one of them into a master template; the college ones, for example, we can leave alone. The remaining ones seem to be fairly redundant, save for a few custom labels. Any which diverge to such a degree that we're not gonna be able to manage without edge cases, we can skip. Alakzi (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
          • So are you going to remove the college ones in the list of proposed templates above? Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. Given that Alakzi has given a reasonable explanation, I will have to support such a merge. I have to take this position because it seems {{Infobox Super Bowl}} was created first, and then the other ones were apparently created as either forks or substantial copies without sufficient attribution. Without such sufficient attribution, it is more difficult to trace these infoboxes back to the original editor who started Infobox Super Bowl in the first place: yours truly. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep them the way they are. Making 8 template into a single template will make them difficult to use. SBLV2021 (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

More railway station services templates[edit]

Template:Bedminster railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Parson Street railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Yatton railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Montpelier railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Clifton Down railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Stapleton Road railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Filton Abbey Wood railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Sea Mills railway station services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Single-use templates which can be merged with the transcluding articles. (See also this discussion on similar templates.) Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Countdown-ymd[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep for non-mainspace use. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Countdown-ymd (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

I don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia. (Currently it is only used in New Horizons#Current status.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems like an argument without an argument. Can you give a substantive WP policy that supports deletion of this template, which is used correctly in a 6,600-word article with 137 references? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that a countdown of the number of seconds to an event lacks Wikipedia:Notability. I think that an encyclopedia should contain permanent information, not something that is updated every second. It is appropriate for this article to give the date and time of the closest approach to Pluto, but the second-by-second countdown adds nothing to the article. Do we need a countdown to the number of seconds to the year 2016? Do we need a countdown on the number of seconds to the 2017 US Presidential inauguration? I don't think so. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
We don't require every fact in every article to be "notable". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And also from WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." A person would not expect a second-by-second countdown to an event in an encyclopedia. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The event is very notable and of great scientific value. Displaying the countdown enriches the article, even if it displays offensive seconds. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The event is very notable - the countdown clock is not. It should just give the date and time of the closest approach. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And one of the editors says "After July 14, the template will show 'Event time has passed.' " What is the point in that? Why not say that for everything that has already happened? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
'Event time has passed' is the default output. Editors may set |expired= to almost anything. Setting |expired=none will cause the template do display nothing after the countdown has expired.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think this template should be used on any article page. It lowers the tone of the article. It could be useful for project pages for start times of events or other things (software updates?). Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment: {{countdown-ymd}} in New Horizons#Current status replaced {{countdown}} which renders a countdown in years, weeks, days, ... Weeks, beyond a fortnight or so, become meaningless to most people. There may be a bigger question here. If the countdown is inappropriate content, then is it not true that all of the other data in §Current status also inappropriate? This is probably not the correct venue to decide that question but if Editor Bubba73's belief that an encyclopedia should contain permanent information then almost nothing should be retained at New Horizons §Current status.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
If you look in the article's talk page, I objected to the data in the "current status". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Response to Bubba73: You say "I think that an encyclopedia should contain permanent information". That would prevent us from showing the age of a person based on the current date, as {{Age in years}} and {{Birth date and age}} (400,000 transclusions) do. For consistency, you should nominate those for deletion. See also Wikipedia is not paper. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
That is different. It isn't given to the second and it isn't until a future event. It doesn't give the number of seconds until their next birthday. Give the date and time of the closest approach to Pluto, but get rid of the countdown clock. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Deletion would seem to be a bit heavy-handed, I don't have a problem with this sort of thing being used outside main space. But I agree with others above that this doesn't seem appropriate for use in articles, where the date and (if necessary) time of a future event should be sufficient. I think we should also include the aforementioned {{Countdown}} in this discussion (removed from 2014 Sukma Games which is now past) and the infobox-style {{Day Countdown}} (used in 2016 Sukma Games). PC78 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Although I agree that a counter like this is not very suitable for an encyclopedia, I think it's quite useful given the proximity of the flyby. 2 more months and it's gone, so no harm in keeping it for a little longer. Húsönd 19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
We need to nip this thing in the bud before it shows up in other articles. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least disallow in mainspace (if anyone wants it for their user page or a project page or something) per nom. This is appropriate content for a fan site, not for an encyclopedia. --B (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, could be very useful in project or template space. Agree that it has no place in the main namespace. -- King of ♠ 04:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bubba73 has some arguments against employing the template in articles. I do not quite agree with the conclusion (although I might do, if there was a more active Wikinews project, and more cross-references with that project). Parts of the arguments I never would agree with, I think: It is true that the template would give bad effects for wikipedia, if it were over-used in almost each and every article, but this is rather beside the point; such over-use would be negative for any template, and the potential risk for abuse is not a reason for deleting any one of them. However, even if the validity of the Bubba73 arguments were granted, they would be a reason to deprecate in the article namespace, not to delete the template.
Actually, I think that you should start by criticising the use of this template at the New Horizons article itself, Bubba73, rather than proposing a template deletion. JoergenB (talk)
I did start by discussing it on that article's talk page. Then I asked at the Village Pump, then here. Is there a way to keep it, but not allow it to be used in mainspace articles? (That seems to be the consensus.) BTW, someone else recently deleted it from that article, saying that it doesn't belong there. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I apologise; you indeed first did bring this up on the New Horizons talk page (which I ought to have remembered). JoergenB (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You've piqued my curiosity: how is it that {{countdown-ymd}} won't work well for editors who are not logged in?
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
pages are cached for editors who aren't logged in, hence the countdown won't update as frequently. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it not true that pages are cached for everyone, regardless of logged-in status? Logged-in editors aren't served a freshly rendered page just because they are logged in; we get the same view as everyone. This is why changes in templates that effect a page's display require a null edit of the page to see the template's changes; why testcases pages have a refresh link; why {{countdown-ymd}} has a refresh link. Right? Am I missing something?
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
things are always changing but the last I recall seeing was described in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-10-08/Technology report. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
In the page that you reference it says that logged-in users outside of the US suffer a delay because their requests are routed to Virginia for service. If you look at the page source of a page you view while logged in, you will see that it contains refererence to you. If you view the same page while you are not logged in, no mention of you. I think that the stuff about you is added as the page is served to you. I didn't read anything in your reference to suggest that {{countdown-ymd}} works differently for not-logged-in readers/editors than it does for logged-in editors.
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is obviously useful outside of article space. There are probably hundreds of templates that are used exclusively out of the mainspace. Epic Genius (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

May 10[edit]

Template:About a Boy[edit]

Template:About a Boy (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Provides the same links as the main article. Possibly keep if expanded to include the movie. Fuddle (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • delete. once the cast is removed, we won't have much left. Frietjes (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete This is only a cast list. It has little to do with the content of the show. Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Merge sections[edit]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 24. Alakzi (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

May 9[edit]

Template:Infobox CFL team[edit]

Template:Infobox CFL team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox American football team}}, save for the one pre-filled parameter label. I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - the CFL is not American football. In addition, the delete notice on the infobox has broken the infobox so it can't be used. - BilCat (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • We can call it {{Infobox gridiron football team}}, if it makes any difference. Alakzi (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Alakzi, to the extent template names matter, no one has commonly referred to American football as "gridiron football" for decades, and even then, the term "gridiron" was used most often metaphorically to refer to the field, not the sport. Today, "gridiron football" is a term used almost exclusively outside North America by other English-speaking countries to distinguish American and Canadian football from association football. It's not elegant, but I think "Infobox American-Canadian football team" would probably be the most semantically obvious phrasing. That said, I would be curious to hear what BilCat thinks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
        • OR we could do a "Canadian football team" redirect for "Template:American football team," and the CFL guys would not have to change a thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Serves me right for using Wikipedia as a source. Alakzi (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @BilCat: Are there any Canadian football-specific or CFL-specific parameters you need which this template currently lacks? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't actually use the infobox regularly, so I don't know. I posted a note at WP:CFL, but no one's posted hear. The redirect would probably be fine if no one objects. - BilCat (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The CFL seems better right now, the new one has no automatic color stripe and the uniforms are too small. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Colouring the title is unnecessary; the colours are listed separately and also appear in the logo. The size of the uniforms can be adjusted with |uniformsize=. The default could also be increased. Alakzi (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, in the United States, where American football is played, "gridiron football" is an archaic term that is rarely used. "Gridiron" is used far more frequently in Canada, and even more so in other English-speaking countries where they feel compelled to distinguish American and Canadian football from association football/soccer. A neutral and accurate template name might be something like "Template:Infobox American and Canadian football team". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • comment, I would support redirecting to {{Infobox American football team}} and then, if there are no objections, moving the parent template to "Infobox American and Candian football team" as suggested by Dirtlawyer1. Frietjes (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Good idea, Frietjes. With your suggestion, the shorter template names can be preserved while we consolidate these nearly identical templates into one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:English-language soap operas[edit]

Template:English-language soap operas (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Not a suitable topic for a WP:NAVBOX. This is what categories are for. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, since this is the English language Wikipedia, first and foremost, and the topic is in clear accordance with Wikipedia's English language itself, as opposed to this being a non-English language Wikipedia. Should the nominee chose to create a category based exclusively upon this template as a replacement, then, by all means, after such is created, delete. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this meets any of the criteria for a WP:NAVBOX, that's why I've nominated it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Categorise. Per nom this is not a suitable topic for a navbox, but categorisation of soap operas by language seems reasonable. PC78 (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Categorize and Delete per nom & PC78. Eman235/talk 00:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, better as a category. Frietjes (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete This is better covered by categories, not templates. Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:125 greatest hurlers of the GAA[edit]

Template:125 greatest hurlers of the GAA (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Possible copyvio, conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 125 greatest stars of the GAA that had as rationale: List is entirely subjective and thus fails WP:LSC and is almost certainly copyright of the Irish Independent hence failing WP:COPYVIO, see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. The Banner talk 10:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and the closing statement on the article's AFD—subjective inclusion criteria and copyrighted list. Maralia (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:China line[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge per nom. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:China line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Rail-interchange (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Rail color box (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:China line into Template:Rail-interchange and Template:Rail color box.
{{China line}} has three different display styles, style=box, longbox and fullbox. The box style is used for the same purpose as {{Rail-interchange}}, and it could be merged there. The fullbox style is used for the same purpose as {{Rail color box}}, and its values could be merged into the {{system lines}} and {{system color}} template system so they could be used with {{Rail color box}}. (Alternately, {{China line/box}} could be merged into {{RouteBox}}, a more similar template, and {{China line}} be either kept as a helper template for it or have all fullbox values substituted. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC))

Except for one line (CRT-Circle), all longbox style outputs are identical to either box or fullbox outputs (except that box does not use bold formatting while the others do). Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Useddenim (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • merge, no need for a different template for each country. Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Japan station[edit]

Template:Infobox Japan station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Japan station with Template:Infobox station.
There is no need for a separate infobox for every country. There are only several parameters (second image, address in Japanese (probably not needed), postal code (probably not needed), year of renaming (could be merged with oldname), operator heading for multi-operator stations) that don't have analogues in {{Infobox station}}. This template is very similar to {{Infobox China station}}, which is pending to be merged into {{Infobox station}} already; a wrapper for {{Infobox China station}} to {{Infobox station}} could feasibly be modified to fit this template. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge, as the country specific template is redundant, per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, you cannot dismiss things as probably not needed when they are parameters that are used frequently on a frequently used template. In order to merge this template, a mapping from the old template use to new is needed which will highlight impact on the affected pages. This may then highlight a to change Template:Infobox station to cater for these fields. We also need to bear in mind an eventual move to Wikidata to store this sort of information and the templates used on other wikis e.g. ja:Template:駅情報. Furthermore the use of this template Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes#Rail_transport shows it has substantial use, second after Infobox Station. I'd be nominating something with much smaller use and eat this elephant one part at a time. Alex Sims (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Alex Sims: the address in Japanese is unnecessary because the address is already stated in English; if one wants to find the Japanese address one should go to the Japanese Wikipedia. The postcode is often placed in |address= or |borough= in {{Infobox station}} (see Grand Central Terminal, Chicago (CTA Red Line station)), but can be added as a parameter to Infobox station if necessary. (The Japanese Wikipedia's infobox, for comparison, does not state the address in English, and I'm not sure if it has a postcode field.) As for the fact that it has the largest number of transclusions except for {{Infobox station}}, the only two others outside the UK which aren't currently in a merge discussion or aren't pending to be merged are {{Infobox SMS station}} and {{Infobox New York City Subway station}}, which would be more difficult merges. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
      • And why are UK station templates being treated differently? Even the nominator indicates there are several differences between {{Infobox Japan station}} and {{Infobox station}}. If we are going to consolidate, we should consolidate ALL of the station infoboxes. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @Nihonjoe: To clarify, the UK infoboxes aren't being specifically exempted from merging (just that no one has gotten around to most of them yet, because of their differences to {{Infobox station}}). Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • merge, no need for a different template for each country. Frietjes (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that merging into a unified global station infobox template makes sense, but there are a few points that need to be taken care of if Template:Infobox Japan station is to be merged as proposed. As mentioned above, what will happen to the "operator2" field currently used for individual station areas or buildings operated by different operators (such as in Shibuya Station), and can similar functionality be achieved using the Template:Infobox station infobox? Another issue is the fact that some of the fields in Template:Infobox Japan station have long been used to automatically generate categories for the article, namely "Railway stations opened in XXXX" from the "open" field, and "Railway stations in XYZ Prefecture" from the "pref" field. I believe this practice is discouraged, and I have slowly been working through Japanese station articles to add the corresponding categories manually, but with over 5,000 articles using this template, that's a seriously long task. It would be nice if station articles were not just removed from their corresponding categories when the infoboxes are merged/replaced. --DAJF (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@DAJF: While I'm not entirely sure exactly what will be merged, the operator header can be added with a couple of extra <div>s and the categories probably won't be removed from {{Infobox Japan station}} (for an example of what might be done, see {{Infobox Paris metro}} which, when eventually substituted, will also substitute {{Paris Metro/municcat}}). Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Create a wrapper so items unique to {{Infobox Japan station}} can still be used if needed. Stating a person can just go to the Japanese article for some of the information is disingenuous as it assumes the person understands enough Japanese to find the information there. Having some of the Japanese information in the infobox here makes the page far more useful. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Nihonjoe: Assuming you're referring to the address in Japanese (the only item in Japanese other than the Japanese name), I guess a case could be made for merging it (|native_address=, |native_address_lang=ja) since in most places where |address= is currently used the local language address is in the Latin alphabet and is not very different from the English address. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Not just that, but "operator heading for multi-operator stations" per nom. Either a wrapper needs to be made, or Template:Infobox station needs to be modified to accommodate, or we leave things as they are. It isn't as if the staus quo is broken, just a group of people wanting to make everything generic, and making it harder to make changes in the future if something new needs to be added for Japanese stations. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not merge as WP:INFOCOL is just an essay and not widely accepted as even a guideline. Therefore, there is no valid reason to do this. The template is not redundant and serves a very specific purpose in a group of like articles. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete {{Infobox Japan station}} as redundant to the superior {{Infobox station}}. The only parameter I could think of merging is |presentname=, but that could easily be made part of |former= (i.e. "previous name (until year)"). The address in Japanese can go - per WP:IBX and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. |operator2= corresponds to |type=. A parameter for each of the country's subdivisions is plain overkill; they should all be collapsed into {{Infobox station}}'s |address=. Finally, auto-categorisation is discouraged by WP:TEMPLATECAT. Alakzi (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Substitution wrapper is in the sandbox and testcases are here. Alakzi (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
      • We need someplace to put "(See other stations in xxxx)", which links to the category listing all the stations in that prefecture. That's one reason the prefecture is separate. This is extremely useful for those who can't remember the name of a station but may recognize it if they see it. And why are all the example images for the proposed changes so freakishly large and the other ones so small? They aren't like that in the articles. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
        • We do not customarily provide category navigation in infoboxes; the category links can be found at the bottom. And why are all the example images ... A bunch of people argued that, unlike any other infobox, the Template:Infobox station default should be 300 pixels - go figure. As for the Japan station ones, I merely copied the examples provided in the documentation. Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I should also note that WP:IBX doesn't even have the word "address" anywhere on the page, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't say anything about not including address for places such as train stations (it does mention not including "the telephone number or street address of the 'best' restaurants" and things like that, but mentions absolutely nothing about giving the address of the location being discussed...in fact, the two examples it uses of the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre in that same paragraph specifically give the address for those landmarks. Therefore, WP:IBX and WP:NOTDIRECTORY are irrelevant to your argument. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
        • WP:IBX states that infoboxes should "present key facts"; the address in Japanese is not one such. Point 2 of WP:NOTGUIDE - which is what I'd meant to link to - is "travel guides". The address in Japanese is not of immediate encyclopaedic interest to English Wikipedia; principally, it might interest travellers. Alakzi (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
          • How is the location of a station not a key fact? I would argue that it is one of the most relevant facts about the station. How do you find the station without the address? Yes, it might interest travelers, or anyone else trying to find it on a map (not everyone who looks things up on a map is a traveler). Being able to find something on the map is very important if you are trying to find other notable locations nearby. I've written several groups of articles here based on looking up the address on a map, and knowing the address of the particular location I start with is very helpful. Without it, trying to find it can be hit-or-miss since it is not unusual for multiple stations (or other places on a map) to have similar or the same names in Japanese. Just because you don't find value in it doesn't mean other users of the article won't find the information useful and helpful. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
            • The location is a key fact; the full address in Japanese is not. You make a good point about homonyms in romanised Japanese (or was that not it?), so, perhaps, the kanji address should be mentioned; oddly, it is nowhere to be found in prose, even though, per WP:IBX, infoboxes' purpose is to summarise key facts of the article. Alakzi (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
              • Yes, homonyms are a big part of having the full address. As for the address not being in the main body text, that's easily fixed, though there are often things in the infobox not in the text (coordinates being one example). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

May 7[edit]

Template:Main article interwiki[edit]

Template:Main article interwiki (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only one use, on Highway location marker. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete — let's not encourage linking to non-en sites in these templates. In fact, I don't know how to link interlanguage from a WP:MOS view (how it's kosher now). --Izno (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete main articles cannot be in another language. It would have to be an "also see this" thing -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Main article" should refer to an article on the English-language Wikipedia, though I suppose a "See also" interlanguage link could be appropriate. I don't think any existing guideline coves this sort of thing: H:ILL refers to inline interlanguage links but does not mention hatnotes, while WP:HAT advises against red links and external links but says nothing about interlanguage links. There is some recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote that may be relevant, I will leave a note about this TfD there. PC78 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Move to Template:See also interwiki. Comments above don't explain why articles in other languages should not be linked in prominent places, and there's a good reason why this should be done: allowing readers to find the most relevant information for the topic they're interested in.
In sections or topics which are specific to some country or language (such as the Netherlands highways or the Polish birds), the Wikipedia article for that language is the most relevant place to expand that information; providing a direct link at the location where the reader is reading about the topic should be prerefred to having it at periferal places such as the left column bar or the External link section. Having a multilingual project should be an asset to take advantage of, not something to hide under the rug. Diego (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • This does not serve the readership. "Main" content cannot be in another language, since a monoglot anglophone will not be able to access it. If "main" content is in another language, then it is not main content, therefore this template is wrong. It cannot be "main"; it might be "seealso", but it is definitely not "main" ; -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It serves the readership who knows that other language, which is most likely the people reading the section related to that country. If "main" content is in another language, then it is not main content, therefore this template is wrong. That's a non-sequitur. Where does this logic that "content in other languages is not valid content" come from? It's the basis of all the Delete comments, but it's unexplained. a monoglot anglophone will not be able to access it So your argument is that, because the content is not useful to a subset of the readership, it should be taken away from those who could make good use of it? Diego (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It cannot be main because it cannot be usable to the entire population that accesses English Wikipedia. that being many people who know multiple languages, but do not know every language in the world. Therefore almost all readers will not be able to read any single non-English main, since no one knows every language, which is needed to be able to use this template. Assuming that everyone reading any articles knows every language in the world is the wrong thing to do. Therefore it cannot be a main, since mains should be readable most of the readership. This is English Wikipedia, not Multilingual Wikipedia, all main content should conform to being English accessible, because the readership for English Wikipedia is only expected to be able to read English. We do not serve the readership by assuming they can read every language in the world. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That's patently absurd. The people using the link does not need to know *all* the languages that can potentially be used, only the one actually used at the particular language of that link; as I said, the people who would benefit the most from one link is the people most likely to already know the target language. The idea that *all* content in Wikipedia should be useful to *all* readers is nonsensical - you cannot forbid content that requires some pre-existing knowledge, since that would rule out almost all obscure knowledge. This is English Wikipedia, not Multilingual Wikipedia, all main content should conform to being English accessible By that logic, we shouldn't have interwiki links either. Diego (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (after some thought). I don't believe there is any genuine need for this. The template has been kicking around for about two years and has just one use in Highway location marker, but that already has a standard interwiki link to the Dutch page and I don't see any compelling argument to have the same link repeated in the main text. Even if that link was valid, a single use does not make this template necessary, it would be perfectly sufficient to use {{hatnote}}. Also, to reiterate what was said above I think that "main article" should exclusively refer to an article here on the English-language Wikipedia, though a "see also" link would be fine. PC78 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on that feeling that links should be limited to here on the English-language Wikipedia instead of here on Wikipedia? Diego (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Because each language edition of Wikipedia is a separate entity, because it's not our job here to cater for readers of other languages. {{Main}} should be used "in a summary section for which there is also a separate article on the subject", but the idea that such a "main article" can be in a different language on a different Wikipedia seems like a non-sequitur to me. The article in question already has a standard interwiki to the Dutch article, which should be sufficient for any Dutch readers looking for futher information. If there is anything in the Dutch article that can be translated and used here, we have {{Expand Dutch}}. PC78 (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
1) The problem with standard interwiki links is the reason why we don't have only See also sections and we use hat notes instead: they provide no context of what you will find at the target article, in the same way that hat notes do.
2) Ok, creating a stub might work; but why have such intermediate step with little to no content, and what to do in cases where the English Wikipedia has all the content already translated, but the major interest is in having access to the content in its original language - like in Polish birds?
3) The major objection to this template seems to be against the idea of calling primary ("main") the related content. I've changed my comment to "Move", renaming the template as a See Also as the IP editor and PC78 both suggested, so that it can be used without implying that English Wikipedia editors are responsible for what can be found at the other side. Diego (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
A standard interwiki should merely be the same article in another language, so I don't really understand your problem with regards to "context". Why would Polish birds need additional access to the Polish-language article? PC78 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
If you read the lede, you'll see that it informs the reader about the existence of the Polish and corresponding scientific names of the birds in the linked article. That sort of thing can't be done with the default interwiki links. Diego (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
That's an editorial issue though. If the information is relevant it should be added here, and that's what the {{expand language}} series of templates is for. PC78 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
So, you'd copy the content in another language to the English Wikipedia, rather than sending interested readers to the place where it's already hosted? That's the opposite of what the IP editor said, who argued that all content should be readable by monoglot anglophones and thus opposed including content written in other languages. Diego (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Translate, not copy. But if the Polish names are relevant to that particular article (which seems reasonable given the context) then there's no reason why they couldn't or shouldn't be included here. That's normal practise in my experience (see List of Polish flags, for example), and not what the IP was refering to. PC78 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
That assumes that all such content could be translated or copied, and that it makes sense to do so. What if there's value in linking to the whole article in its original language -so that readers can access it in full, and it doesn't make sense to just copy the whole content to the English Wikipedia? What if the content are images or text which are copyrighted in the country of one Wikipedia and not the other (that's a fairly frequent case)? What if the English Wikipedia happens to have such content covered as a section instead of as a whole article (so that an Interkiwi link between different articles doesn't make sense), as with the Dutch highways? In such cases, a "See also" link is what works best. By deleting the template (wich includes the "see also" version as well as many other variations, not merely the "main" interwiki link that others have !voted to delete), you'll be establishing a precedent that this is an unacceptable solution. Diego (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
But we already have standard interwiki links, so who are you trying to serve by wanting more prominent interwikis within the article? This is the English-language Wikipedia, we shouldn't expect our readers to understand any other language and we shouldn't make allowances for those that do. Some of your "what if's" seem like hypothetical situations and I don't see any point in going down that road, I've already commented on the two given examples and in both cases I can't see any justification for having an interwiki hatnote in addition to the usual interwiki links. PC78 (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • who are you trying to serve by wanting more prominent interwikis within the article? I've already answered that.
  • This is the English-language Wikipedia, we shouldn't expect our readers to understand any other language We aren't, the link is not required to be used by all readers.
  • and we shouldn't make allowances for those that do One more time: why not?
  • Some of your "what if's" seem like hypothetical situations ...and some are actual occurrences. Can you guarantee that no value can be found for such "see also" links, ever, in all possible circumstances, so that it makes sense to forbid those kind of links?
  • I've already commented on the two given examples and in both cases I can't see any justification for having an interwiki hatnote Then let's agree to disagree, since I do find such value, as did the other editors arguing for the inclusion of those links in the respective talk pages (one remains as a hat note, the other was changed to a direct link). Diego (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (whack a rat) per WP:LAYOUT#Links to sister projects "Links to Wikimedia sister projects and {{Spoken Wikipedia}} should generally appear in "External links", not under "See also"." There has long been consensus that foreign language links appear on the left of the page and that they, like other sister projects, (with the exception of the dictionary, source and commons (for images)) should not appear outside external links. If someone really wants to make a connection like this then use {{see also}} (or {{main}} if appropraite) to an English language article (writing a stub if need be) and then include the links to foreign articles in the standard way. -- PBS (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Keeping Up Appearances[edit]

Template:Keeping Up Appearances (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • delete and use simple see also links. Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – With only two links within the box, this isn't needed to facilitate navigation. Links in See also sections will suffice. North America1000 19:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Population census prose[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Tom harrison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 00:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Population census prose (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

By common consensus and practice, we don't use templates like this for article content.

Perhaps that consensus should be re-evaluated (via a centralised discussion), given the opportunities offered by Lua & Wikidata (I'm neutral as to the answer).

Either way, this template has problems with its error handling, as was seen in Lemery, Batangas until I removed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • comment, moving the 'property' calls to a template seems like an improvement. P199 and Unbuttered Parsnip have been moving loads of information to wikidata. as far as the error goes, I fixed it here, but someone like RexxS could probably tell us why the old method for retrieving the year broke. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikidata/Wikibase documentation is a disgrace. Where is the return value of mw.wikibase.getEntityObject documented? Where's the CHANGELOG? Is there one, at all? Has this error been caused by a breaking change? When and where was the breaking change announced? Utter disarray. The template can be kept, but without any of the prose. Alakzi (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    • In order: mediawikiwiki:Extension:Wikibase Client/Lua. mediawikiwiki:Extension:Wikibase Client in the infobox provides a link to the change log (or apparently should, since it doesn't; I will go ask Lydia about that). It does look like that was a breaking change. --Izno (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd looked at both of those. The attributes of the entity table are undocumented. Alakzi (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I could swear I've seen a full list of the entity table attributes. Bah. --Izno (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I've been out all day, campaigning in the UK General Election. It seems that the way Wikidata stores dates has changed in the last week. As you can see at Module talk:Wikidata #Module_talk:Wikidata, I dumped the claims for European green toad and showed that P574.datavalue.value.time was stored as "+00000001768-00-00T00:00:00Z" on 29 April, but if you try {{#invoke:Wikidata|Dump|claims}} today, you get the time as "+1768-00-00T00:00:00Z". Because we didn't have the mw formatting functions when I initially wrote the module, I relied on pulling year, month, day, etc. out of the zero-padded string using substrings at fixed positions. Of course now that the year is in the second to fifth characters, instead of in the ninth to twelfth characters, we get errors. Many thanks to Alakzi for spotting the problem and applying a fix. Using the current mw date format functions should harden the code against changes to the way data is stored and provide a less error-prone module in future. --RexxS (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per the similar template used in eclipse articles. Well meant but editorial content like this should be up to editors of the article. A prose-free wrapper for Module:Wikidata would be fine, so editors can access the data without invoking the module directly, though that's no great imposition. As for the brokenness I reported it at WP:VPT#Wikidata date errors.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    • [I have since fixed it. Alakzi (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)]
  • Subst and delete, since it now uses {{PH wikidata}}. Alakzi (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bangtan Boys[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was deleteNorth America1000 19:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bangtan Boys (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

All album articles were little more than track listings and were redirected to the band's page. As a result, there is only one link left in this template. Random86 (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough content for a navigation box. Dimadick (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

May 6[edit]

List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, Individual Yearly NavBox templates[edit]

Template:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States 2012, NavBox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States 2013, NavBox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States 2014, NavBox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States 2015, NavBox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

These have been replaced by Template:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, Yearly NavBox.

Per reasons 2 and 3 listed at WP:TFD, these templates should be deleted. ProtectorServant (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per nom, better covered by a category and/or succession boxes and/or a multipage toc. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Replaced by a better template. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Paris by Night[edit]

Template:Infobox Paris by Night (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox episode}}. Only 38 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - {{Infobox episode}} is a redirect. I think you mean {{Infobox television episode}}, which does not contain a number of parameters that are included in {{Infobox Paris by Night}}. These parameters are "executive" (not the same or substitutable by "producer"), mc, filmedat, filmedon, venue and format. This means that the template is NOT redundant to {{Infobox television episode}} at all. WP:TV is currently in the early stages of revamping all related infoboxes, but I cannot see any of the parameters listed being included in Infobox television episode, which is used in over 8,500 articles. These parameters are only applicable to 38 articles and there simply isn't justification to include such low-use parameters. However, it does seem reasonable to use them for Paris by Night, so a separate infobox seems warranted. --AussieLegend () 14:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • |filedat= and |venue= should be one parameter; and could legitimately be added to {{Infobox television episode}}; as could |filmedon=, albeit with a better name. {{Para|executive} does indeed seem to be the same as |producer=; the vanity of those holding the title aside, but it's hard to tell, as the template is not documented and the label not linked. |mc= is replaceable using |presenter=. |format= seems simply superfluous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Alternatively, we could merge with {{Infobox television}}, which is only lacking |filmedon=. These shows aren't part of a series, so they don't fit the episode infobox very well. Alakzi (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Even if we combine parameters, those in this infobox are used in only 38 articles, out of 8,572 articles using the two infoboxes, so there's very little justification for including them in Infobox television episode. Executive producers (executive) and producers (producer) are two different things and are treated differently across the TV project so using one for the other definitely isn't appropriate. It would lead to infoboxes being filled with names, as there are very few EPs and lots of Ps. I do have to agree on format. It's not a parameter at all, it's hardcoded into the template. --AussieLegend () 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
          • The justification is that they will apply to far more than just those 38 articles; hence my use of the phrase "could legitimately be added". If the producer fields are that different, then the same applies there also; however, I note that Television producer says that one is just a "type" or the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
            • What is the basis for the claim that "they will apply to far more than just those 38 articles"? If they did don't you think they would have been added by now? Clearly, we've seen no need up to this point. I don't see you editing TV articles much, so I suspect your misinterpretation of Television producer is based on lack of experience in that area. That article clearly demonstrates the difference between EP and other types of producer. Executive producer even has its own article. You simply can't replace one with the other. --AussieLegend () 09:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
              • "If they did don't you think they would have been added by now?". No. And your reverse appeal-to-authority is simultaneously ad hominem, irrelevant, and wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
                • Classic Andy. Attack rather than answer the question. --AussieLegend () 11:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Question and comment - (I don't edit TV articles much and don't understand:) IF there is this difference between EP and P, I am truly surprised that it comes into play in no more articles than these 38. It doesn't hurt to add a parameter to a general infobox. It does not have to be filled, and certainly not with all people, only with relevant ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    • EPs aren't really something that is uniquely significant to most episodes. EPs are more significant in the main series article. Typically EPs are EPs for the whole series run, or several seasons, while writers, directors and producers generally vary from episode to episode. That means we don't generally need to address EPs in episode articles. We have to be careful about adding parameters to TV infoboxes. They seem to be more subject to abuse than other infoboxes, like {{Infobox settlement}} for example. I still regularly have to remove attempts to colourise infoboxes even though the parameters were removed some time ago, remove |location= which is often used incorrectly and so on. TV articles are regularly edited by casual fans or kids who don't understand, or want to understand, the MOS or policies and guidelines. We need to ensure that TV related infoboxes are fit for the specific purposes, which is why we have different infoboxes for main, season and episode articles, and why some shows have specific infoboxes. Merging them just cause extra trouble for the people who try to ensure articles meet Wikipedia standards. --AussieLegend () 11:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me further understand by comparing to something I know. A separate infobox for a single series looks like instead of {{infobox opera}}, have a separate one for the works of one composer? (... which Would not make much sense to me.) Couldn't the EPs be dropped for this single series also? Or mentioned differently, such as with P but marked "EP"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
No, that doesn't seem a valid comparison. A television series consists of a number of episodes. The main article uses Infobox television, while articles for individual episodes use Infobox television episode. Infobox television contains information that is relevant to the episodes as a group, while Infobox television episode contains information specific to individual episodes. Trying to relate this to operas and composers, Infobox television would be best described as the infobox to be used for the composer, and Infobox television episode would be the infobox used for individual operas. That said, it really is a poor comparison. --AussieLegend () 08:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox television}}, after having added a filming dates parameter to it, per my comment above. Alakzi (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a worse idea than replacing it with Infobox television episode. Adding a parameter to an infobox used in 32,553 articles to cater for a mere 38 is not appropriate. Parameters should be used by a significant number of articles. Filming dates are rarely sourced. It's an invitation to add OR to articles. There's also the fact that Infobox television is meant for main series articles, not for individual episodes. We have Infobox television episode for episode articles. Having some episodes use Infobox television and some use Infobox television episode doesn't makle a lot of sense at all. --AussieLegend () 11:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
These are not conventional episodes. Filming dates are relevant to live shows broadcast at a later date, and could - potentially - be used by many more articles. If the concern's that it'll be used indiscriminately by newbies, simply do not list the parameter in the syntax for copying. Alakzi (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
They're still individual episodes of a series that has its own main article which is, not surprisingly, titled Paris By Night, as well as having a list of episodes at List of Paris by Night episodes. They should therefore be using an episode infobox, not an infobox meant for main series articles. --AussieLegend () 11:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Do one-off TV shows use, or should use, the TV box? Is the original filming date of live TV shows broadcast at a later date a key fact? If the answer to both of these is yes, then the addition of this new parameter would be sensible. On another note, we've probably introduced ambiguity by renaming the "Broadcast" heading to "Release", as it might be confused with home release in some instances. Alakzi (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a simplistic approach. These are not one-off episodes. They are episodes of a popular Vietnamese-language musical variety show, produced by Thúy Nga and hosted by Nguyễn Ngọc Ngạn and Nguyễn Cao Kỳ Duyên, featuring musical performances by modern pop stars, traditional folk songs, one-act plays, and sketch comedy. There are many similar programs, that have "one-off episodes" and the episodes, where they have articles, use Infobox television episode. --AussieLegend () 14:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a pragmatic approach: let's use the TV infobox for the outliers, which require the TV infobox's higher-order parameters, and keep the episode infobox lean, to provide only for episodes in a season. Alakzi (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
We have specific infoboxes for specific purposes. Main series articles use Infobox television, episodes use Infobox television episode. We shouldn't be introducing inconsistencies in the way we use them. What's next, us Infobox road for cities? --AussieLegend () 05:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I can appreciate the hierarchical angle, but Paris by Night episodes are treated more like one-offs than regular episodes; the TV infobox should cater for one-off shows. Perhaps that is the wrong approach to Paris by Night, but - given the circumstances - I do not believe that flooding the episode infobox with overlapping parameters would be prudent. If we can't agree on using {{Infobox television}}, then I'd prefer if {{Infobox Paris by Night}} were kept. Alakzi (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Question: Do we have other special TV shows with multiple "episodes" (not mini-series)? If so, how do we handle them?--Gonnym (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we do, and we use the hierarchy. --AussieLegend () 17:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • keep. could see merging this, but this isn't a merger proposal. Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not sure if this helps inform any decisions, but in TV a producer is typically a "line producer" or the person who's responsible for (and this will vary) organizing budget, filming locations, staffing new hires, coordinating locations, organizing payroll, making sure the production conforms to union rules, and things of that nature. Sometimes they are the ones funding the series. Executive producers (generally speaking) are in charge of the creative aspects of the show. In Animation, for instance, you might have an Executive producer who is in charge of all the visual, artistic elements, character design, etc. and then you might have an EP who is in charge of all the writing staff, and who may be called a "showrunner". Sometimes people get Executive Producer credits, but don't actually do anything. Celebrities sometimes wind up with these vanity titles. Please note that I'm speaking generally, and there is probably a lot of gray area all over my statement. Executive Producer should not be confused with Executive in Charge of Production, as these are typically network suits who oversee the entirety of the production. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would like to add to this - In American TV shows, a Showrunner (the highest credit of a TV show) is an Executive producer, but not all of the Executive producers are showrunners. However, in American film the Producer is higher than the Executive Producer in the credits. In Israel TV shows, a Producer is similar to American EP, while the Israeli EP is similar to the American Producer. Very confusing. In short: different credits. Regarding this issue though, I'm not a fan of show-specific templates, but this should not be merged in the top level template as it seems to be more of an episode.--Gonnym (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - It should be mentioned that, shortly before this nomination, the TV project started looking at revamping infobox television season, with the aim of removing redundancy and making the TV infoboxes more consistent with each other. Once that is completed we will move onto infobox television episode. It's likely that many of the TV infoboxes will be updated and reworked so that they can be embedded in the main infoboxes, rather than remain as entirely separate infoboxes. This decision to use a modular approach was actually due to an edit made by Pigsonthewing to infobox television episode.[2] It will allow us to keep the main parameters consistent, while still allowing the flexibility to add "special" parameters for shows such as Paris By Night as needed, without bloating templates with parameters that should only be used in a few articles. --AussieLegend () 06:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Transportation in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania[edit]

Template:Transportation in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Template is not used in any articles. In addition, past precedent has called for by-county road templates to be deleted as categories better handle the need. Dough4872 02:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

May 5[edit]

Template:Town of Hranice[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was deleteNorth America1000 18:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Town of Hranice (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

almost all redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, recreate when more articles exist (preferably more than just the town and its three suburbs). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:EXISTING. — Wyliepedia 12:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:DRN[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Kharkiv07Talk 23:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:DRN (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

It was decided at the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page that banners are rarely seen by regular editors, and a notification on talk would be more effective, so Template:DRN-talk was created to replace this. Kharkiv07Talk 23:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep - There has been no consensus at the DRN noticeboard in regards to the habits of regular editors. I believe someone might have mentioned the subject of regulars and what they look at, but I don't think we would try to decide the habits of contributors. Having optional tools is always helpful, but we shouldn't delete different templates that serve a different purpose just because a new template is created. Lets at least wait and see if either template gets much use before attempting a deletion. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ivory Coast national football team matches[edit]

Template:Ivory Coast national football team matches (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per WP:NENAN, links to only three matches. Not a useful aid to navigation at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: You are probably unaware, but by a large consensus WP:NENAN can no longer be used as an argument for deletion of templates. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • That's not quite what the closing comment of that discussion says. PC78 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
      • The closing comment is actually not a very good summary of the actual consensus reached in the discussion. It bares reading the whole thing. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I have and I think it's a fair summary. There is no concensus there that explicitly prohibits the use of WP:NENAN in a deletion argument. PC78 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough blue links to justify a navigation template (at this stage i.e. no prejudice to it being re-created in future if further populated with notable bluelinks). GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per GiantSnowman: a navbox that is mostly red links does not serve the function of a navbox in facilitating reader navigation among existing, related articles per WP:EXISTING. NENAN essay is irrelevant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Czech Republic national football team matches[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Consensus in this short discussion is for deletion. North America1000 18:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Czech Republic national football team matches (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per WP:NENAN, links to only one match. Not a useful aid to navigation at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough blue links to justify a navigation template (at this stage i.e. no prejudice to it being re-created in future if further populated with notable bluelinks). GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per GiantSnowman: a navbox that is mostly red links does not serve the function of a navbox in facilitating reader navigation among existing, related articles per WP:EXISTING. NENAN essay is irrelevant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:South Korea national football team matches[edit]

Template:South Korea national football team matches (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per WP:NENAN, links to only three matches. Not a useful aid to navigation at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough blue links to justify a navigation template (at this stage i.e. no prejudice to it being re-created in future if further populated with notable bluelinks). GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per GiantSnowman: a navbox that is mostly red links does not serve the function of a navbox in facilitating reader navigation among existing, related articles per WP:EXISTING. NENAN essay is irrelevant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sweden national football team matches[edit]

Template:Sweden national football team matches (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per WP:NENAN, links to only two matches. Not a useful aid to navigation at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough blue links to justify a navigation template (at this stage i.e. no prejudice to it being re-created in future if further populated with notable bluelinks). GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per GiantSnowman: a navbox that is mostly red links does not serve the function of a navbox in facilitating reader navigation among existing, related articles per WP:EXISTING. NENAN essay is irrelevant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Israel national football team matches[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was deleteNorth America1000 19:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Israel national football team matches (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per WP:NENAN, links to only one match. Not a useful aid to navigation at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough blue links to justify a navigation template (at this stage i.e. no prejudice to it being re-created in future if further populated with notable bluelinks). GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per GiantSnowman: a navbox that is mostly red links does not serve the function of a navbox in facilitating reader navigation among existing, related articles per WP:EXISTING. NENAN essay is irrelevant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Tunisia national football team matches[edit]

Template:Tunisia national football team matches (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per WP:NENAN, links to only one match. Not a useful aid to navigation at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough blue links to justify a navigation template (at this stage i.e. no prejudice to it being re-created in future if further populated with notable bluelinks). GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per GiantSnowman: a navbox that is mostly red links does not serve the function of a navbox in facilitating reader navigation among existing, related articles per WP:EXISTING. NENAN essay is irrelevant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sudan national football team matches[edit]

Template:Sudan national football team matches (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per WP:NENAN, links to only two matches. Not a useful aid to navigation at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough blue links to justify a navigation template (at this stage i.e. no prejudice to it being re-created in future if further populated with notable bluelinks). GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per GiantSnowman: a navbox that is mostly red links does not serve the function of a navbox in facilitating reader navigation among existing, related articles per WP:EXISTING. NENAN essay is irrelevant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ethiopia national football team matches[edit]

Template:Ethiopia national football team matches (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per WP:NENAN, links to only two matches. Not a useful aid to navigation at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough blue links to justify a navigation template (at this stage i.e. no prejudice to it being re-created in future if further populated with notable bluelinks). GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per GiantSnowman: a navbox that is mostly red links does not serve the function of a navbox in facilitating reader navigation among existing, related articles per WP:EXISTING. NENAN essay is irrelevant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Argentina national under-23 football team matches[edit]

Template:Argentina national under-23 football team matches (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per WP:NENAN, links to only three articles, none of which are specifically matches of the Argentinian U-23 team, merely competitions in which they played. Not a useful aid to navigation at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough blue links to justify a navigation template (at this stage i.e. no prejudice to it being re-created in future if further populated with notable bluelinks). GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per GiantSnowman: a navbox that is mostly red links does not serve the function of a navbox in facilitating reader navigation among existing, related articles per WP:EXISTING. NENAN essay is irrelevant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:China national football team matches[edit]

Template:China national football team matches (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per WP:NENAN, links to only two matches. Not a useful aid to navigation at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough blue links to justify a navigation template (at this stage i.e. no prejudice to it being re-created in future if further populated with notable bluelinks). GiantSnowman 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per GiantSnowman: a navbox that is mostly red links does not serve the function of a navbox in facilitating reader navigation among existing, related articles per WP:EXISTING. NENAN essay is irrelevant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

May 4[edit]

Template:Hello Baby[edit]

Template:Hello Baby (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

All seasons of the show were merged/redirected, so all the links in the template are redirects. Random86 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Main article suffices. — Wyliepedia 08:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – Links within the navbox all redirect to Hello Baby at this time, negating the need for the template. North America1000 19:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Neg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jimp 04:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Neg (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The template produces a hidden -{{{1}}} (i.e. 1st parameter preceded by a hyphen) and displays &minus;{{{1}}} (i.e. 1st parameter preceded by a minus sign). The intention was for numbers to be sorted correctly. It may have been useful in 2008 when it was created but now it is not as "−" (a minus sign) is recognised by the sorting thing anyway. The code should be replaced by −{{{1}}}, all transclusions should be substituted then it should be deleted. Jimp 16:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • There's also {{Msym}}. Alakzi (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • That should go too. Jimp 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Highways of the 1927 Arizona Highway Plan[edit]

Template:Highways of the 1927 Arizona Highway Plan (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This navbox does not appear to list all of the state highways in Arizona in 1927. Additionally, per past precedents, navboxes listing all of a state's highways have been deleted several times between 2005 and 2009. Imzadi 1979  04:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Can be better covered in a list. Dough4872 14:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • convert to a list article, if one doesn't already exist. Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not withstanding the fact that I can't see much value in a template listing Highways at an arbitrary point in time, this is a list masquerading as a template. Resolute 17:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, convert to a list if needed. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

May 3[edit]

Template:US Youth Soccer State Associations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was deleteNorth America1000 17:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:US Youth Soccer State Associations (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Youth soccer is not notable, so this template is not required JMHamo (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Correction: Youth soccer, as an activity, is clearly notable per WP:GNG, but the overwhelming majority of youth soccer associations, and virtually all youth soccer teams are not notable per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Therefore this mostly red link template of youth soccer associations should still be deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vast majority of subjects linked by this template are not notable. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, and connect articles by simple see-also links. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Dirtlawyer1; not enough notable bluelinks to justify having a navigation template. GiantSnowman 15:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not currently a useful aid to navigation. No problems recreating if sufficient bluelinks are made. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox YouTube personality[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Overall consensus is for the template to be retained. Discussion regarding a potential renaming can continue on the template's talk page. North America1000 16:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox YouTube personality (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

An infobox for people on the YouTube service, with too much emphasis on ever-changing numbers. Template:Infobox comedian and Template:Infobox person already accomodate this, and in a better way. Infoboxes are by occupation or type, not commercial service. JacktheHarry (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Seriously? How many truly notable "Youtube personalties" satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG? In the absence of the documented existence of a substantial number of notable "Youtube personalties", I agree with the nominator's rationale that these few cases may be better handled by Infobox person or one of the infobox templates suggested by the nominator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • This many? PC78 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • There are currently hundreds of pages on YouTube personalities, this is a widely used infobox. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
      • It's not a "widely used infobox", it was only created less than 48 hours ago about a month ago and is currently used in 14 main space articles. PC78 (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
        • It was created April the 3rd, i don't think that's 48 hours. GuzzyG (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
          • My bad, obviously I misread the dates. Still not "widely used" as claimed though, which was really the crux of my point. PC78 (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. The mere 26 transclusions can be replaced with {{Infobox person}}. 23:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
    • There's over 200 people in category:Youtube Personalities this could be used on, i don't know if that is redundant.
  • merge rewrite to match {{infobox person/Internet info}} (i.e., make it a module). Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per Frietjes. Seems like a sensible proposal. PC78 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep. Not redundant to any other template as far as I know. We have many articles of notable YouTubers where this may be of use, perhaps moreso as a module of {{Infobox person}} than by itself, but that capability is already present. PC78 (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The template provides info regular userboxes do not. Being a well-known YouTube personality is an occupation, not a hobby or side-gig. If you're going to go by the logic that the "ever changing numbers" is too much of a hassle you're incorrect. The List of wikis page always needs to have its article count updated, subscriber/view count should be no different. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • A person who produces video to upload to a website, either privately, or as part of a company will already fall into an occupation. Distributing it on YouTube doesn't make their occupation inherently different. This infobox is as silly as having {{Infobox iTunes artist}}, {{Infobox Fox News journalist}} {{Infobox BBC journalist}}, {{Infobox Microsoft employee}}, {{Infobox Twitter celebrity}}, etc. {{Refimprove}} has been stuck on List of wikis for over 4 years for a reason. A number of pages on a wiki isn't comparible to hits \ subscribers of a page \ person.--JacktheHarry (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep First of all, just to point out, the template's been around for a month, not 48 hours. Moving on, the fact that the template is only used on 14 mainspace articles doesn't make it a redundant template; it could be used on the hundreds of other pages on YouTube personalities. The "ever-changing numbers" don't need to be ever-changing anyway; the counts on the pages in which the templates are being used have been updated monthly. The associated acts section is also useful for notable YouTubers regularly collaborating with each other as well as other notable entertainers, and can be likened to the same section on {{Infobox musical artist}}. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • {{Infobox musical artist}} has no field for records sold for the same reason this infobox shouldn't have hits or subscribers. Are you going to manually update them all every month then? If you are forever changing numbers every month using a primary source, then this constitutes a WP:NOTNEWS piece of info.--JacktheHarry (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Davykamanzi's reasoning. Aria1561 (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful template for an increasingly growing occupation, provides our readers with information unique to their occupation, another infobox does not have the right parameters for youtubers. The views and subscribers provide encyclopaedic information as a crucial part to an occupation for our readers. GuzzyG (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleting this template will just inconvenience Wikipedia editors and viewers. As stated above, it is useful for a growing occupation. If it isn't being used as much as it should, use it more. I'd like it to stay.--Jacob Hellflames (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This is indeed, perhaps counter-intuitively, a valid and notable occupation. And it has parameters that are useful and hard to otherwise customize for such notable individuals of this occupation. Mamyles (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. People should not have a different infobox just because of which website they upload content to. YouTube is not an occupation; people upload videos to it because it's the dominant video-sharing site, not because of what they want to upload. Replace with {{Infobox comedian}}, {{Infobox musical artist}} or {{Infobox person}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Rename to something like {{Infobox online content creator}}, change the background colour to the default grey, add an "online service" parameter for specifying the website the person uses, change all transclusions to a child infobox to be used inside {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox comedian}}, etc. (since this template lacks a large number of parameters that other biography infoboxes have) and remove the capability to use this as a standalone infobox, per Soulbust. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep/Rename Noticing how mostly everybody who wants to delete this template states that it should be deleted for the reason that the infobox is called "YouTube personality", perhaps a compromise can be reached by renaming it "Online content creator" and adding a parameter which an editor can list the websites which an online personality posts their created content. Soulbust (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and perhaps Rename to "YouTube channel" - I tend to fall on the side of thinking fewer YouTubers are notable than have articles or are mentioned on Wikipedia, but I don't see why this should be deleted. Even if it wasn't created 48 hours ago, it was created last month. With such things it seems like if the person who creates the infobox doesn't him/herself implement it or enlist a WikiProject or bot to do so, it's going to take time to be noticed. I think it makes sense to consider the number of pages it applies to, which is far greater than the number where it's been added already (and is only going to grow). Changing it to "YouTube channel" switches it from an occupation to a form of content. Yes, that may mean that someone who is notable for YouTube and something else may have a YouTube channel infobox and a person infobox, but most of the time it's the channel that's most notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans[edit]

Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This navbox does not include a parent article. How are these subjects connected and what is the defined scope? There should be an article that ties these individuals together. Otherwise, this is cherry picking. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator's rationale. This will be a controversy magnet, with no stand-alone article per WP:NAVBOX, and no well-defined criteria for inclusion within the navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC) delete, better covered by the list article and/or a category. Frietjes (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: As a relatively newbie editor, I was unfamiliar with the requirement for a parent article. If this template is deleted, could the contents be converted to a category or a list? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Grand'mere Eugene: You may request that the closing administrator "userfy" the list for potential conversion to an article or list. Please take note of the issues regarding criteria for inclusion mentioned in this TfD, and those of Nokkenbuer below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. A parent article can easily be made. Epic Genius (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Too controversial without a parent article. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This template is created to drag wikipedia directly into an individuals political ambitions. This is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – I'm rather ambivalent about this whole situation, but modifying my !vote with "weak" or something of the sort doesn't really help. I basically agree with the other users above. When I noticed this template, it concerned me because I felt it was a bit POV and drew unnecessary attention to an arbitrarily defined set of shootings. The only binding common characteristics among all these shootings are that the victims are either black or African-American, and that it occurred within the 2010–2019 decade. Some of them potentially had racial motivations, whereas most did not. This template may inadvertently lead readers to false conclusions and cause controversy which is otherwise unnecessary. I appreciate the attempt, but I see no valid rationale for keeping this template at this time. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 21:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The navbox is not here to imply that any of these events had racial motivations; only that there has been widespread question raised as to such, resulting in controversy reported in the media. Labeling something "controversial" is not necessarily a POV issue; in this case, it simply implies that there has been polarization around these individual events for the same reasons. -OrbitHawk (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic is notable, even despite the controversial word. NPOV, well, it is controversial. A template is a useful navigational tool here. We are not the ones making the connection, numerous media are doing so. The nom is however right that a dedicated, main article would help to prove that (hint for interested editors). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I just don't think this is needed or relevant, especially without a parent article as noted above. HanselnGretel (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, better off as a section in the article African-American history.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. How about expanding something like Black Lives Matter or another movement-related article as the parent? The current protest movement is perhaps the most appropriate context to consider the "2010s" aspect, given that incidents of this kind are certainly not new.--Pharos (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - hold it, please. I expect some votes will be nullified because the parent article has been created. The table itself is complete, but perhaps some prose can be written connecting the article to Black Lives Matter, Ferguson unrest etc. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Same rationale as Millionsandbillions. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In addition to my comment above, I'd like to note that the recent creation of a parent article wouldn't change my vote, as the parent article was clearly created with the sole intent of affecting this deletion conversation. Let the parent article survive its own deletion discussion, then we can remake this template. NickCT (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - to those saying 'there is no parent article', the parent article has been created. And I don't think the template is redundant to the article. You could argue the template is POV, but it covers a legitimate topic, and all the deaths linked in the template have been controversial and often linked with each other in the media. The name is a bit clumsy, but I think it's worth keeping. Robofish (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Note that parent article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 14:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - I contributed to the parent article, List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s, which is now also nominated for deletion. While I understand concerns that criteria for inclusion are not well-defined, the navbox is still useful, and the List article should be improved and/or merged, perhaps with Black Lives Matter. —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is now a well-sourced parent article, and the qualifications for inclusion would be controversy/polarization regarding these events as cited by news organizations worldwide. The whole point is that with any of these given events, question has been raised as to whether race was a factor. In some cases it may have been, and in some cases perhaps not; that simply isn't for us to decide, but the fact that there has been polarization in regards to race in these events is what merits their inclusion in this navbox. If any of the entries in the navbox do not meet this clearly defined criterion, then they do not belong there, but I currently see plenty of relevant inclusions. The only thing arbitrary about inclusion here might be the date range. --OrbitHawk (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable topic for African-American history and a reason for social protests and riots. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative delete - per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s (which also imply that the content could live as similar template of different scope/name). If the parent article is kept and not renamed, however, I withdraw my "Delete" here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Controversial" is not IMO a well defined inclusion criteria. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article that shares the name with the template got deleted, so why should the template stay? --Booyahhayoob (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a useful navigational template for a notable issue for many readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per my arguments at the AfD. ― Padenton|   13:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Ideally there would be a article on the subject, but this navbox meets the other four criteria of the guideline, so keeping it would seem to be advisable as it would neatly take the place of 'see also' sections in these articles and help readers find related content. A subject being controversial is not a valid deletion reason, however I have no prejudice against renaming the template to something more neutral, if such a title exists.- MrX 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't know about the cases that happened before Trayvon Martin, but that case, plus all the others in 2014 and afterward are definitely notable in terms of the civil rights and race topics in U.S. history. As such, I think this template should be kept to list them all. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - No inclusion criteria. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Airreg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep after refactoring. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Airreg (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Generates an inline external link to registration entries at various aviation registration authorities based on aircraft registration, it provides no added value to the article and ignores the fact that aircraft registrations are not unique so it can also generate the wrong information. On the rare occassions it needs to be used as a reference then normal cite web templates can be used. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This has been nominated for deletion before -[3] and kept.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It has been suggested that this would be far better formated as a reference citation rather than creating an external link, I dont have a problem with using these sites as a reference but creating an external link in the middle of an article doesnt really add anything. MilborneOne (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve: aviation authorities' registries are the primary source of information with regard to aircraft type, age, owner etc. of any given registered aircraft (even for old, reused registration numbers, the relevant information about previous registrations is still there, at least for the FAA registry), so this template definitely serves a purpose. However, I think it should be improved as follows:
    • Airreg's scope should be restricted to aviation authorities' registries only, roughly in line with the Principle of Least Astonishment. By clicking specifically on an aircraft registration, I would expect to be taken to a source regarding the aircraft registration itself, not e.g. to a file on Aviation Safety Network about the accident involving the registered aircraft, even if the article itself is about the accident (this is also where confusion can arise, in case a reg number is reassigned, after a crash, to another aircraft, which in turn is involved in a notable accident later on; i.e. there's no 1-to-1 correspondence between aircraft registrations and notable accidents).
    • Airreg should generate a {cite web} inline reference, instead of an external link, just like any other reference to a source; there is no reason to resort to an external link, in this case.
I'm happy to give it a go at modifying the template, if I manage to. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The 'Aircraft registration' article is already linked by the word 'Registration' in the Infobox 'aircraft occurrence' and typically by the same word in the article body, when present, e.g. "The accident airplane, registration N93119, [...]", so linking the same article also through the Airreg template would create duplication. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I've created a test template in my sandbox that implements my previous suggestions. For example, with this modified version of Airreg, the code {{Airreg|N|470A}} would produce:
N470A[1]
adding an entry in the References section, thus:

References

  1. ^ "FAA Registry". Federal Aviation Administration. 
The same would happen with the handful of aviation authorities that are currently supported (Canadian, Australian etc.) and the template would also be 'fail safe', i.e. if applied to a nationality that is not supported (e.g. German), it simply returns the aircraft registration (so acting as a provision, in case in future that national registry becomes implementable in the template); for example, {{Airreg|D|ARZK}} would simply return
D-ARZK
No other websites are referenced by the template, apart from supported national aviation authorities. I'll update the Airreg template soon, unless there are objections. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As original proposer I support your change User:Deeday-UK and as such I think we can close this request, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:EMedicineDictionary[edit]

Template:EMedicineDictionary (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

I have never found a useful link from eMedicine dictionary. What these links link to are a one or two line description of something in a website that's saturated with advertising. There's no encyclopedic value in these links, they do not help readers, and there is no reason we should be providing these en masse to users over other dictionaries. These links never provide more information that a stub article provide. Therefore I am proposing deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is an attempt at content-removal-by-template-deletion. Show consensus to never link to the site concerned, in a more relevant venue (e.g. the spam blacklist), and then propose deleting this template only if and when it is no longer used. Otherwise, the links will be added anyway, and you'll have removed the best method of monitoring them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment not a very good template. Even for cases like Cytology where it could provide useful information, the template only goes to a search page and not to the exact match article page. looks like it shouldn't ever be used for for references as it lacks author information.  —Chris Capoccia TC 11:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete pages should be using Template:EMedicine instead of Template:EMedicineDictionary. It gives reliable medical sources like: Asthma~treatment at eMedicine instead of spam pages.  —Chris Capoccia TC 14:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per Chris Capoccia and Tom. Frietjes (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Andy Mabbett's reasoning. It's up to content creators whether or not to put these links in articles. Looking at the transclusions I do see some valid uses of this template, such as a reference to synonyms in articles' lead. While it may not satisfy RSMED, using this source as a thesaurus is reasonable. Mamyles (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
in every case where you think it's "reasonable" as a dictionary/thesaurus, they should be citing Webster's New World Medical Dictionary as above. It appears this spammy emedicine site copied without attribution.  —Chris Capoccia TC 11:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nomination reasoning and WP:NOTBURO, while replacing any appropriate citations with a reputable alternative. I trust that Chris or Tom will oversee the orphaning of this template. Alakzi (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2[edit]

Template:Ibis Aviation aircraft[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn after creation of articles (NAC). Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ibis Aviation aircraft (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Navigation templates are supposed to make navigation between articles easy. But this template only has one subject to navigate between. So, not useful. The Banner talk 21:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - As has been noted on many of these previous discussions before, these aircraft nav boxes are part of WikiProject Aircraft and we have a solid consensus to create them so as to provide a uniform experience for readers across all aircraft type articles. The key objection here seems to be that the box contains redlinks. As also noted before, the members of WikiProject Aircraft are in the process of a multi-year project to complete articles on all aircraft types and manufacturers, so these will get completed in the future. See WP:NODEADLINE. If this box is deleted then it will just have to be recreated as more refs are found and the missing articles are written. In the meantime it clearly spells out to readers what other aircraft the manufacturer also made and which articles are not yet written, see WP:REDLINK. The time spent by editors constantly nominating aircraft project nav boxes for deletion and the time needed to constantly debate over their usefulness would be better spent writing the missing articles. That way the encyclopedia would be constantly improved day-by-day instead of constantly degraded by deleting nav boxes. - Ahunt (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, mostly as a deterrent against bringing any more of these at TfD; they do not clutter the page (they're the only one or one of two navboxes), and can visibly be expanded. Simply, not worth the acrimony these nominations lead to. Alakzi (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as has been explained before per Ahunt above, to keep nominating these type of navboxes to have the same discussion is getting tiresome. MilborneOne (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – Maybe someday these should all be changed into side menus below the infobox, like the WP:MILHIST {{Campaignbox}} series of templates. Go ahead and propose something like that if you feel the need (and are willing to pitch in and help with the conversion), but continually nominating these type of navboxes is becoming POINTY to the level of non-trivial disruption. @The Banner:, are you cruisin' for another topic ban? Mojoworker (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • LOL, no arguments so attacking the nominator? The local consensus is by now a rather pointy defence that time and time again is swept aside by administrators. Just play is by the Wikip[edia-rules, a project is no independent thingy. The Banner talk 15:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTE: This template now has two aircraft links, not one, plus the manufacturer link for a total of three, so the original deletion rationale is no longer applicable. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay, we have a real problem here. I could not give a rodent's furry little butt less whether we keep this particular navbox or not, and I certainly don't have an axe to grind with WikiProject Aircraft. Here's what I see -- an identifiable WikiProject believes that it is being singled out by a one editor for special treatment of its navboxes. They may have a point, in that a single editor has repeatedly nominated that WikiProject's templates for deletion. On the other hand, WikiProject Aircraft is under the horribly mistaken impression that its navboxes are not subject to the same precedents as the navboxes of every other WikiProject on Wikipedia. There should be only one standard for the navboxes of all WikiProjects, not a separate standard for WikiProject Aircraft. It's time to stop fighting these mostly red links aircraft navbox TfDs to an effective "no consensus" draw with the same half dozen editors participating. It's time that a Request for Comment be prepared and the wider Wikipedia community be asked to participate in a community-wide decision regarding single-link and mostly red-link navboxes. Seriously, folks, there should be one standard for the treatment of all navboxes based the number of links, with no special exception for WikiProject Aircraft or anyone else -- it is unfair to every other WikiProject which are being held to a different standard. Unless WP Aircraft and the nominator are willing to strike some sort of temporary/intermediate compromise -- perhaps giving WikiProject Aircraft a set time to create stub articles for all of its templates -- then I am prepared to file that RfC, and I can assure all parties, with proper community-wide notice on community-wide notice boards, WikiProject talk pages, etc., that RfC will attract dozens of editors interested in maintaining a single standard, not the same handful who have participated in The Banner's nominations over the past month or so. I suggest you work it out elsewhere, and I would be happy to mediate, but it's time for both parties to stop the squabbling, and bring this running spat to a conclusion. Otherwise, I will request that a formal, binding decision be made for you by the wider community, and by many editors who are amply familiar with the long-established precedents regarding red links and navboxes and to whom a single standard will have great intellectual appeal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I would be in favour of that, or any other solution, that would result in an end to these endless time-wasting nominations of navboxes for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ahunt: Would WikiProject Aircraft accept a four-month moratorium on navbox TfDs to give the project time to create stub articles for its navboxes? Do we have any idea how many mostly red-link navboxes for aircraft exist? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't presume to speak for the rest of the project members and I am not sure how many redlinks there are in all the existing nav boxes today. We embarked on a project to write articles on all the outstanding aircraft types and all their manufacturers about six years ago and have been writing steadily since then. After the first round of navbox noms last August I started in on filling in the missing company articles from the nav boxes I had created and have written hundreds of them in the ensuing months, finishing those just recently. My best guess on the total number of aircraft types left to do is about 10,000, but I have no idea how many are redlinked already, nor how many manufacturers are left to be done. As per WP:NODEADLINE I am not sure it is possible to nail down a time frame. As far as this particular nav box goes there are now two redlinks. If I can make it to my central library this week I can probably find the refs to turn those blue, but all this nominating nav boxes has to stop. We can't all run off to to the library every time someone takes an exception to a redlink and dealing with these TfDs is taking up the time I have to write articles and address the problem. That is why this particular nominator ended up with a topic ban on nominating project nav boxes last summer, because these noms are stopping work on building the encyclopedia. I think we need a count on how many redlinks there are to be filled, if someone knows how to get those. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I really am not concerned about one or two mostly red-link navboxes, but it is apparent from the frequency of TfDs for aircraft navboxes that WP Aircraft has more than a few. My concern here is not this or any other particular navbox, but the horrible precedent this sets, the unproductive waste of TfD time with no-consensus outcomes, as well as the unequal/unfair treatment of different WikiProjects. Can you please start a discussion among WP Aircraft members regarding a TfD moratorium, how much time would be required to create two and three-sentence stub articles for more than half of the existing red links in all aircraft navboxes, and then we can start to negotiate our way out of the weeds? Otherwise, I believe the inevitable outcome of a community-wide RfC on point -- after much drama, many recriminations, and a lot of name-calling -- is going to be the mass nomination and deletion of most of the navboxes that fall into this category. I'm offering you a way out of that. Please take it to your fellow project members, and get the requested feedback regarding the scope of the red link navbox problem and the number of weeks required to stub out the articles; if these topics are notable, there should be sufficient online sources to create stubs and that will resolve the red link issue. What I'm looking for is a commitment of project members to address the problem in a defined time period in exchange for a TfD moratorium during that time. And please remind your fellow project members that WP:NODEADLINE is an essay, not policy or a guideline, and its argument only applies to article build-out, not template red links. You may continue this discussion on my user talk page if you like; with added links for newly created stubs this particular template is now likely to be kept. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1, it's certainly not a "horribly mistaken impression that (WikiProject Aircraft's) navboxes are not subject to the same precedents as the navboxes of every other WikiProject on Wikipedia." As I mentioned above, the entire WP:MILHIST {{Campaignbox}} series of templates, are navboxes, even though they act more like a modular Infobox extension. Many of these have few links (I even had an example of a valid use case where a campaignbox had no links (I can dig it up if anyone's interested). Perhaps because they are side menus they are viewed differently than are other navboxes. In any case, he's also been nominating articles with no redlinks, but rather few bluelinks. I'd like to see WikiProject Aircraft move to a sidebar model for aviation manufacturer templates following WP:MILHIST's style, if that's deemed more acceptable. An additional benefit would be the ability to add an optional image (logo, map, etc). Mojoworker (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"horribly mistaken impression that (WikiProject Aircraft's) navboxes are not subject to the same precedents as the navboxes of every other WikiProject on Wikipedia." You're a damn fool if you don't accept reality, and I'm offering you way out. Otherwise you risk the mass deletion of all mostly red-link aircraft templates after a community-wide RfC. I am a member of a half dozen different WikiProjects and these are the standards to which our navboxes are held, and to which we hold the navboxes within the scope of those WikiProjects. WP Aircraft will not get a free pass when the larger community looks at this. Please consider carefully. It's your choice, and I won't lose any sleep over it if you chose wrongly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good proposal. The Banner talk 00:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer, I am not a member of Wikiproject Aircraft. I've helped with a few articles and edits, but it's not really an area I'm familiar with, nor overly interested in. However I wouldn't mind helping them out from time to time, and you know, actually work on building an encyclopedia. I am a member of WP:MILHIST however and I would encourage Wikiproject Aircraft to consider a campaignbox analogue for aircraft manufacturers as in this example. That way, when/if the larger community looks at this, I'd wager there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the WP:MILHIST type of usage will be overturned, since it's being used in over 15,000 articles, many of which have few links. Mojoworker (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I am certainly happy to start a discussion as you have suggested and see if we can identify how many boxes have redlinks and how long the project members would think is needed to create articles for them all. I'll try to start that at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft quickly, as soon as I can phrase the questions that we need answers to. One issue is that all the easy and obvious aircraft type articles were long ago created, including most that have on-line refs. At this point in the project we are mostly down to tracking down old paper references and so each aircraft article can take considerable time and research to create. One question that will quickly come up is "what is the problem with having redlinks in infoboxes?", so if you can point out the policies against this, that would speed the discussion. One other suggestion that may come up is just removing the redlinks from nav boxes. Would that be a useful solution or not? - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The main problem is that navigation templates are supposed to aid navigating between related articles. A template with just one item just does not do that. And with two or three items it can just as easy be done by normal wikilinking instead of a navigation template. The Banner talk 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You put that argument forward in our previous discussion about the minimum number of links that a nav box should have. As you will recall WP:NENAN had suggested five, but the consensus there was that was not appropriate, WP:NENAN was thrown out and the consensus concluded that there was no hard minimum number of links for a nav box. If you have a concrete proposal here I would be happy to hear it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I did not see the argument NENAN here. And you remember it incorrectly: the discussion ended with the conclusion that the essay was not a valid argument, not the number of five. By the way: NENAN is still in use as deletion argument. You better start hunting that down. The Banner talk 00:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If you have a concrete proposal here I would still be happy to hear it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal of Dirtlawyer1. And to add to that: I would suggest to upgrade the templates so they have links to at least three items in the actual box itself. So not counting a backlink to the manufacturer, in this case Ibis Aircraft and not counting the link to the type of plane/motor, usually also outside the actual box, in this case Fixed-wing aircraft. I do not mind when you add key people of the manufacturer to the template to make up the number. And to keep it peaceful: a period without nominations (at least from my part, I have no influence on others) so that you and your comrades can bring up the templates to standard from now till Christmas? The Banner talk 08:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Just for information all the boxes can be seen by following the links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Templates/Manufacturer-based aircraft navigational boxes, currently 762 in the category but I have not looked at the blue/red link count yet. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that, that is helpful. I am just waiting to hear back from User:Dirtlawyer1 to my two questions and I will start the discussion at WikiProject Aircraft and see what we can come up with. One thing we need to do at the project is try to figure out how many nav boxes would need articles filled in and therefore the size and scope of the job, but need to agree on some sort of standard first as to which nav boxes are okay and which ones aren't. Two questions for you: 1. Since the requirement seems to be to "navigate between articles", why "three" articles linked and not "two"? How about two aircraft types, regardless of other links, like people, aircraft general types and the manufacturer (which is in the box heading normally)? 2. Are redlinks in nav boxes an issue? - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Because for two articles it is still easier to connect them through normal wikilinking then through a navigation template. About the link of the manufacturer: that should be always there. A navigation box of a manufacturer without an article about the manufacturer should not even exist. Regard the content of the actual navigation box: I do not have a real preference as long as it has at least three relevant blue links (what is already a lowering of my previous stance of five). See also links are usually not considered relevant links. The Banner talk 12:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks for clarifying your thoughts on those points. As soon as I get a response from Dirtlawyer1 on his thoughts on the two questions I posed, I should have enough information to start the project discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The problem here is not merely redlinks, and, although the three bluelinks threshold seems workable (implying 2 aircraft and a manufacturer), slavishly counting links misses the broader picture that sometimes a "navigational template" is more than merely a navigational template, presenting more information, context, and consistent display of information and navigational links across a broad series of articles. This for example – is it merely a navigational template? Sometimes these will have fewer than 3 links. For a couple of WP:MILHIST examples see {{Campaignbox Mine Run Campaign}} and {{Campaignbox Fredericksburg Campaign}} – those campaigns have 2 entries, but to remove the campaignboxes from the relevant articles would leave them inconsistent with all the other WP:MILHIST articles and is addressed in the Manual of Style which says that the various navigation templates maintained by the Military history WikiProject are "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." If this usage is considered acceptable for WP:MILHIST, then why is Wikiproject Aircraft being singled out for doing the same thing?